1
|
Soyama A, Hamada T, Adachi T, Eguchi S. Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery. Hepatol Res 2024; 54:786-794. [PMID: 38801309 DOI: 10.1111/hepr.14058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2024] [Revised: 04/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high-definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long-term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akihiko Soyama
- Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Takashi Hamada
- Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Tomohiko Adachi
- Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Susumu Eguchi
- Department of Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ceccarelli G, Catena F, Avella P, Tian BW, Rondelli F, Guerra G, De Rosa M, Rocca A. Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature. World J Emerg Surg 2024; 19:28. [PMID: 39154016 PMCID: PMC11330055 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-024-00555-6] [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: 05/14/2024] [Accepted: 07/22/2024] [Indexed: 08/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review. METHODS We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases). RESULTS 36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Graziano Ceccarelli
- Department of General Surgery, "San Giovanni Battista" Hospital, USL Umbria 2, Foligno, Perugia, Italy
| | - Fausto Catena
- Division of General Surgery, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy
| | - Pasquale Avella
- Department of General Surgery and Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy.
- Department of Medicine and Health Science "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
| | - Brian Wca Tian
- Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Fabio Rondelli
- Department of General Surgery, "San Giovanni Battista" Hospital, USL Umbria 2, Foligno, Perugia, Italy
| | - Germano Guerra
- Department of Medicine and Health Science "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Michele De Rosa
- Department of General Surgery, "San Giovanni Battista" Hospital, USL Umbria 2, Foligno, Perugia, Italy
| | - Aldo Rocca
- Department of General Surgery and Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy
- Department of Medicine and Health Science "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Azimuddin AM, Hirata Y, Boyev A, Jain AJ, Ayabe R, Ajith J, Schmeisser JA, Newhook TE, Ikoma N, Tzeng CWD, Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Tran Cao HS. A propensity score matched cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2024:S1365-182X(24)02228-7. [PMID: 39198140 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 08/02/2024] [Indexed: 09/01/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-assisted hepatectomy compared to the open approach is scrutinized. We compared the costs of robotic versus open hepatectomy at a large cancer center. METHODS Patients undergoing hepatectomy (1/2019-2/2022) were collected from a prospectively maintained database and 1:1 propensity score matched for 61 robotic and 61 open hepatectomy patients by complexity, tumor diagnosis, and age >65. Financial data was collected and converted to a ratio of service cost to average OR cost. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared. RESULTS Median length of stay (2 vs. 3 days), major complication rates (0% vs. 8.2%), and 90-day readmission rates (3.3% vs. 11.5%) were lower for robotic hepatectomy (all p < 0.05). Total 90-day perioperative costs were lower by 19.5% for the robotic cohort (mean 6.89 vs 8.56; p < 0.01). Intraoperative costs were higher in the robotic cohort (mean 2.75 vs. 2.44; p < 0.01). Cost reduction drivers during postoperative care were supplies (mean 0.26 vs. 0.75), laboratory (mean 0.27 vs. 0.49), regular surgery unit (mean 0.19 vs. 0.32), recovery room (mean 0.26 vs. 0.29) and pharmacy cost (median 0.21 vs. 0.32; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION Hospital costs of robotic hepatectomy were lower than those of open hepatectomy due to significantly reduced postoperative costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahad M Azimuddin
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Texas A&M School of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yuki Hirata
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Artem Boyev
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anish J Jain
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Reed Ayabe
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeeva Ajith
- Financial Planning and Analysis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jason A Schmeisser
- Financial Planning and Analysis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy E Newhook
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Naruhiko Ikoma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yun-Shin Chun
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Armstrong M, Lu P, Wang J, El-Hayek K, Cleary S, Asbun H, Alseidi A, Tran Cao HS, Wei AC. Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: barriers to adoption and equitable access. Surg Endosc 2024:10.1007/s00464-024-11078-1. [PMID: 39117957 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11078-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2024] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 08/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite a growing body of literature supporting the safety of robotic hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) procedures, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques in HPB surgery has been slow compared to other specialties. We aimed to identify barriers to implementing robotic assisted surgery (RAS) in HPB and present a framework that highlights opportunities to improve adoption. METHODS A modified nominal group technique guided by a 13-question framework was utilized. The meeting session was guided by senior authors, and field notes were also collected. Results were reviewed and free text responses were analyzed for major themes. A follow-up priority setting survey was distributed to all participants based on meeting results. RESULTS Twenty three surgeons with varying robotic HPB experience from different practice settings participated in the discussion. The majority of surgeons identified operating room efficiency, having a dedicated operating room team, and the overall hospital culture and openness to innovation as important facilitators of implementing a RAS program. In contrast, cost, capacity building, disparities/risk of regionalization, lack of evidence, and time/effort were identified as the most significant barriers. When asked to prioritize the most important issues to be addressed, participants noted access and availability of the robot as the most important issue, followed by institutional support, cost, quality of supporting evidence, and need for robotic training. CONCLUSIONS This study reports surgeons' perceptions of major barriers to equitable access and increased implementation of robotic HPB surgery. To overcome such barriers, defining key resources, adopting innovative solutions, and developing better methods of collecting long term data should be the top priorities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Misha Armstrong
- Department of Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Pamela Lu
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jane Wang
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Kevin El-Hayek
- Department of Surgery, MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Sean Cleary
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Horacio Asbun
- Department of Surgery, Baptist Health Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Adnan Alseidi
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Alice C Wei
- Department of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, C-886A, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Christodoulou M, Pattilachan TM, Ross SB, Lingamaneni G, Sucandy I. A decade of experience with 530 minimally invasive robotic hepatectomies from a single tertiary hepatobiliary center: analysis of short-term outcomes and oncologic survival. J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 28:1273-1282. [PMID: 38821208 DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.05.030] [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: 04/11/2024] [Revised: 05/14/2024] [Accepted: 05/27/2024] [Indexed: 06/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This research is the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at a single high-volume institution. METHODS With institutional review board approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44.0%) were minor resections, 133 (25.0%) were technically major resections, and 166 (31.0%) were major resections. The patients were aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.7) years with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 7.9) kg/m2. Cirrhosis was present in 80 patients (19.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3.0 (3.0 ± 0.5) and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7.0 (8.0 ± 3.0). Of note, 280 patients (53.0%) had previous abdominal operations, and 44 patients (8%) had previous liver resections. The operative time was 233.0 (260.0 ± 130.7) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 205.0) mL. Moreover, 353 patients (66%) had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease, and 500 patients (95%) had an R0 resection margin. The tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%), of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo score of >III). The length of stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 82%, 65%, and 59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%, 68%, and 60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%, 61%, and 50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, respectively. CONCLUSION After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective approach to liver resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Christodoulou
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | | | - Sharona B Ross
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Gowtham Lingamaneni
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
7
|
O'Connell RM, Hoti E. Challenges and Opportunities for Precision Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2379. [PMID: 39001441 PMCID: PMC11240734 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132379] [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: 05/28/2024] [Revised: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 06/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
The incidence of colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing globally due to an interaction of environmental and genetic factors. A minority of patients with CRLM have surgically resectable disease, but for those who have resection as part of multimodal therapy for their disease, long-term survival has been shown. Precision surgery-the idea of careful patient selection and targeting of surgical intervention, such that treatments shown to be proven to benefit on a population level are the optimal treatment for each individual patient-is the new paradigm of care. Key to this is the understanding of tumour molecular biology and clinically relevant mutations, such as KRAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability (MSI), which can predict poorer overall outcomes and a poorer response to systemic therapy. The emergence of immunotherapy and hepatic artery infusion (HAI) pumps show potential to convert previously unresectable disease to resectable disease, in addition to established systemic and locoregional therapies, but the surgeon must be wary of poor-quality livers and the spectre of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Volume modulation, a cornerstone of hepatic surgery for a generation, has been given a shot in the arm with the advent of liver venous depletion (LVD) ensuring significantly more hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). The optimal timing of liver resection for those patients with synchronous disease is yet to be truly established, but evidence would suggest that those patients requiring complex colorectal surgery and major liver resection are best served with a staged approach. In the operating room, parenchyma-preserving minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can dramatically reduce the surgical insult to the patient and lead to better perioperative outcomes, with quicker return to function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Michael O'Connell
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Saint Vincent's University Hospital, D04 T6F4 Dublin, Ireland
| | - Emir Hoti
- Department of Hepatopancreaticobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Saint Vincent's University Hospital, D04 T6F4 Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fukumori D, Tschuor C, Hamada T, Penninga L, Hillingsø J, Svendsen LB, Nørgaard Larsen P. Efficacy and safety of robotic liver surgery for the elderly: A propensity-score matched analysis of short-term outcomes with open liver surgery at a single center in Denmark. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2024. [PMID: 38866728 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.12015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence of liver tumors requiring surgical treatment continues to increase in elderly patients. This study compared the short-term results of robotic liver surgery (RLS) versus open liver surgery (OLS) for liver tumors in elderly patients. METHODS A prospective database including all patients undergoing liver surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital between July 2019 and July 2022 was managed retrospectively. Short-term surgical outcomes of the two main cohorts (OLS and RLS) and subgroups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) in elderly patients (age ≥ 70 years) with liver tumors. RESULTS A total of 42 matched patients from each group were investigated: the RLS group had significantly larger tumor diameters, less blood loss (821.2 vs. 155.2 mL, p < .001), and shorter hospital stays (6.6 vs. 3.4 days, p < .001). Overall morbidity was comparable, while operative times were longer in the RLS group. The advantages observed with the robotic approach were replicated in the subgroup of minor liver resections. CONCLUSIONS In patients ≥70 years, RLS for liver tumors results in significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than OLS. RLS, especially minor liver resection, is safe and feasible in elderly patients with liver tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daisuke Fukumori
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Christoph Tschuor
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Takashi Hamada
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Luit Penninga
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Jens Hillingsø
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Lars Bo Svendsen
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- CAMES, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Peter Nørgaard Larsen
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sucandy I, Dugan MM, Ross SB, Syblis C, Crespo K, Kenary PY, Rosemurgy A. Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 28:685-693. [PMID: 38462424 DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.02.022] [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: 12/19/2023] [Revised: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 02/16/2024] [Indexed: 03/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy. METHODS A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system. RESULTS Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iswanto Sucandy
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States.
| | - Michelle M Dugan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States; Department of General Surgery, Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine, Boca Raton, Florida, United States
| | - Sharona B Ross
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Cameron Syblis
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Parisa Yazdankhah Kenary
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| | - Alexander Rosemurgy
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, Florida, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
He ZQ, Mao YL, Lv TR, Liu F, Li FY. A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:166. [PMID: 38587718 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01882-1] [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: 02/04/2024] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024]
Abstract
Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhi-Qiang He
- Department of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Ya-Ling Mao
- Day Surgery Center, General Practice Medical Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Tian-Run Lv
- Department of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Fei Liu
- Department of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China
| | - Fu-Yu Li
- Department of Biliary Tract Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ingallinella S, Ardito F, Ratti F, Marino R, Catena M, De Rose AM, Razionale F, Rumi F, Cicchetti A, Giuliante F, Aldrighetti L. Evaluation of the economic impact of the robotic approach in major and postero-superior segment liver resections: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2024; 13:241-257. [PMID: 38617496 PMCID: PMC11007348 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn-23-407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
Background Economic impact of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still a debated issue due to the heterogeneity of liver resections considered and the lack of a rigorous methodology. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) comparing the costs of RLS, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) and open liver surgery (OLS) in the context of complex liver resections and to compare short term perioperative outcomes. Methods The institutional databases of two Italian high volume hepatobiliary centres were retrospectively reviewed from February 2021 to April 2022. Patients submitted to major hepatectomies or postero-superior liver resections were selected and divided into three groups according to the approach scheduled (RLS, LLS and OLS) and compared. Major contributors of perioperative expenses were calculated using the TD-ABC model and accurately quantifying each unit resource consumed per patient and the time spent performing each activity. A primary intention-to-treat analysis (ITT-A) including conversions in the RLS and LLS groups was performed. Results Forty-seven RLS, 101 LLS and 124 OLS were collected. LLS and RLS showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, mortality and hospital stay compared with open. A trend towards reduced conversion rate in RLS compared to LLS was registered. Total costs associated with RLS were estimated at €10,637 vs. €9,543 for LLS and vs. €13,960 for OLS. The higher intraoperative costs associated with RLS (+153.3% vs. OLS and +148.2% vs. LLS, P<0.001), primarily related to surgical equipment expenses, were slightly offset by the postoperative savings (-56.0% vs. OLS and -29.4% vs. LLS, P<0.001) resulting from significantly reduced hospital stays. Conclusions RLS offers economic advantages over OLS, as initial higher costs are offset by better perioperative outcomes. The evolving robotic marketplace is expected to drive down RLS costs, promoting widespread adoption in minimally invasive procedures. Despite its higher costs than LLS, RLS's ability to enhance minimally invasive feasibility makes it a preferred choice for complex cases, reducing the need for conversions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Ingallinella
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Ardito
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Foundation “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesca Ratti
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Faculty of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Rebecca Marino
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Catena
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Agostino Maria De Rose
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Foundation “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Razionale
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Foundation “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - Filippo Rumi
- Graduate School of Health Economics and Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Americo Cicchetti
- Graduate School of Health Economics and Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Felice Giuliante
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Foundation “Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”, IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | - Luca Aldrighetti
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Faculty of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Navinés-López J, Pardo Aranda F, Cremades Pérez M, Espin Álvarez F, Zárate Pinedo A, Cugat Andorrà E. Microfracture-coagulation for the real robotic liver parenchymal transection. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:101. [PMID: 38421523 PMCID: PMC10904403 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01842-9] [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: 11/23/2023] [Accepted: 01/21/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
The use of the robotic approach in liver surgery is exponentially increasing. Although technically the robot introduces several innovative features, the instruments linked with the traditional laparoscopic approach for the liver parenchymal transection are not available, which may result in multiple technical variants that may bias the comparative analysis between the different series worldwide. A real robotic approach, minimally efficient for the liver parenchymal transection, with no requirement of external tool, available for the already existing platforms, and applicable to any type of liver resection, counting on the selective use of the plugged bipolar forceps and the monopolar scissors, or "microfracture-coagulation" (MFC) transection method, is described in detail. The relevant aspects of the technique, its indications and methodological basis are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordi Navinés-López
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Fernando Pardo Aranda
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Manel Cremades Pérez
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Francisco Espin Álvarez
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Alba Zárate Pinedo
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Esteban Cugat Andorrà
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol de Badalona, HPB unit, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
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
|
14
|
Dugan MM, Sucandy I, Ross SB, Crespo K, Syblis C, Alogaidi M, Rosemurgy A. Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases. Am J Surg 2024; 228:252-257. [PMID: 37880028 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.10.034] [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: 08/02/2023] [Revised: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 10/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes. METHODS A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 %) had CLM, 69 (33 %) had HCC, 27 (13 %) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 %) had IHCC, and 19 (9 %) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 ± 12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 ± 6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 %, and 65 % underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 %, length of stay was four (5 ± 4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 %. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 %/75 %/72 % for CLM, 84 %/71 %/64 % for HCC, 73 %/55 %/55 % for Klatskin tumor, 80 %/69 %/69 % for IHCC, 79 %/65 %/65 % for GC. CONCLUSION This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle M Dugan
- Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine, United States; Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, United States
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, United States.
| | - Sharona B Ross
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, United States
| | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, United States
| | - Cameron Syblis
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, United States
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hays SB, Corvino G, Lorié BD, McMichael WV, Mehdi SA, Rieser C, Rojas AE, Hogg ME. Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol 2024; 129:164-182. [PMID: 38031870 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27536] [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: 11/10/2023] [Accepted: 11/11/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023]
Abstract
Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah B Hays
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Gaetano Corvino
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Benjamin D Lorié
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - William V McMichael
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Syed A Mehdi
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Caroline Rieser
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Aram E Rojas
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Melissa E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, Evanston Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Goodsell KE, Park JO. Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions. Minerva Surg 2023; 78:525-536. [PMID: 36946128 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-5691.23.09858-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/23/2023]
Abstract
Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - James O Park
- Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
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
|
18
|
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
|
19
|
Görgec B, Zwart M, Nota CL, Bijlstra OD, Bosscha K, de Boer MT, de Wilde RF, Draaisma WA, Gerhards MF, Liem MS, Lips DJ, Marsman HA, Mieog JSD, Molenaar QI, Nijkamp M, Te Riele WW, Terkivatan T, Vahrmeijer AL, Besselink MG, Swijnenburg RJ, Hagendoorn J. Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis. Ann Surg 2023; 277:e1269-e1277. [PMID: 35848742 PMCID: PMC10174096 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005600] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve. BACKGROUND RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking. METHODS Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss. RESULTS Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures. CONCLUSIONS The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burak Görgec
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maurice Zwart
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carolijn L. Nota
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Okker D. Bijlstra
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Koop Bosscha
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
| | - Marieke T. de Boer
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Roeland F. de Wilde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Werner A. Draaisma
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
| | | | - Mike S. Liem
- Department of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Daan J. Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | | - J. Sven D. Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Quintus I. Molenaar
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten Nijkamp
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter W. Te Riele
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Türkan Terkivatan
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc G. Besselink
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hagendoorn
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Knitter S, Feldbrügge L, Nevermann N, Globke B, Galindo SAO, Winklmann T, Krenzien F, Haber PK, Malinka T, Lurje G, Schöning W, Pratschke J, Schmelzle M. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2023; 408:214. [PMID: 37247050 PMCID: PMC10226911 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02953-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2022] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Knitter
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Linda Feldbrügge
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Nora Nevermann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Brigitta Globke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Santiago Andres Ortiz Galindo
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Winklmann
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felix Krenzien
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Philipp K Haber
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Thomas Malinka
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Georg Lurje
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Wenzel Schöning
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Chong Y, Prieto M, Gastaca M, Choi SH, Sucandy I, Chiow AKH, Marino MV, Wang X, Efanov M, Schotte H, D'Hondt M, Choi GH, Krenzien F, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, Kingham TP, Giglio M, Troisi RI, Lee JH, Lai EC, Tang CN, Fuks D, D'Silva M, Han HS, Kadam P, Sutcliffe RP, Lee KF, Chong CC, Cheung TT, Liu Q, Liu R, Goh BKP. An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:3439-3448. [PMID: 36542135 PMCID: PMC10164043 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09790-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2022] [Accepted: 11/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. METHODS A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yvette Chong
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital & National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 5, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore
- Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Mikel Prieto
- Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Mikel Gastaca
- Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Sung-Hoon Choi
- Department of General Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Adrian K H Chiow
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marco V Marino
- General Surgery Department, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy
- General Surgery Department, F. Tappeiner Hospital, Merano, Italy
| | - Xiaoying Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Mikhail Efanov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Henri Schotte
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Mathieu D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Gi-Hong Choi
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, , Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Felix Krenzien
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - T Peter Kingham
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mariano Giglio
- Division of HPB, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto I Troisi
- Division of HPB, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eric C Lai
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Chung Ngai Tang
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - David Fuks
- Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Universite Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Mizelle D'Silva
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital Bundang, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital Bundang, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Prashant Kadam
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Robert P Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kit-Fai Lee
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Charing C Chong
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Tan-To Cheung
- Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Qiu Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Rong Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Brian K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital & National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 5, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
- Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Emmen AMLH, Görgec B, Zwart MJW, Daams F, Erdmann J, Festen S, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM, van Hilst J, Kazemier G, Lof S, Sussenbach SI, Tanis PJ, Zonderhuis BM, Busch OR, Swijnenburg RJ, Besselink MG. Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:2659-2672. [PMID: 36401105 PMCID: PMC10082117 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09735-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center. METHODS Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications. RESULTS Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anouk. M. L. H. Emmen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B. Görgec
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. J. W. Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F. Daams
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J. Erdmann
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S. Festen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D. J. Gouma
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T. M. van Gulik
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J. van Hilst
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G. Kazemier
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S. Lof
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S. I. Sussenbach
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P. J. Tanis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B. M. Zonderhuis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O. R. Busch
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R. J. Swijnenburg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. G. Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - for HPB-Amsterdam
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Papadopoulou K, Dorovinis P, Kykalos S, Schizas D, Stamopoulos P, Tsourouflis G, Dimitroulis D, Nikiteas N. Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Cancer 2023; 54:237-246. [PMID: 35199298 DOI: 10.1007/s12029-022-00810-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic liver surgery is a novel technique expanding the field of minimally invasive approaches. An increasing number of studies assess the outcomes of robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date comparison of RLR versus open liver resections (OLR), evaluating its safety and efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from January 2000 until January 2022 was undertaken. RESULTS Thirteen non-randomized retrospective and one prospective clinical study enlisting 1801 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 640 patients undergoing RLR and 1161 undergoing OLR. RLR resulted in significantly lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.002), and less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). Operative time was found to be significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection, and mortality rates presented no difference among the two groups. The cumulative rate of conversion was 5% in the RLR group. CONCLUSION The increasing experience in the implementation of the robot will undoubtedly generate more prospective randomized studies, necessary to assess its potential superiority over the traditional open approach, in a variety of hepatic lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantina Papadopoulou
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Panagiotis Dorovinis
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece.
| | - Stylianos Kykalos
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Schizas
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 1st Department of Surgery, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Paraskevas Stamopoulos
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece
| | - Gerasimos Tsourouflis
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Dimitroulis
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Nikiteas
- Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical School, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ag. Thoma 17, 11527, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Varshney P, Varshney VK. Total robotic right hepatectomy for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma using vessel sealer. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2023; 27:95-101. [PMID: 36196015 PMCID: PMC9947367 DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.22-036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2022] [Revised: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
Rapid adoption of a robotic approach as a minimally invasive surgery tool has enabled surgeons to perform more complex hepatobiliary surgeries than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Although various types of liver resections have been performed robotically, parenchymal transection is challenging as commonly used instruments (Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator [CUSA] and Harmonic) lack articulation. Further, CUSA also requires a patient-side assistant surgeon with hepatobiliary laparoscopic skills. We present a case report of total robotic right hepatectomy for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma in a 70-year-old male using 'Vessel Sealer' for parenchymal transection. Total operative time was 520 minutes with a blood loss of ~400 mL. There was no technical difficulty or instrument failure encountered during surgery. The patient was discharged on postoperative day five without any significant complications such as bile leak. Thus, Vessel Sealer, a fully articulating instrument intended to seal vessels and tissues up to 7 mm, can be a promising tool for parenchymal transection in a robotic surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peeyush Varshney
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
| | - Vaibhav Kumar Varshney
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India,Corresponding author: Vaibhav Kumar Varshney, MS, MCh, MRCS, FACS Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jodhpur 342005, Rajasthan, India Tel: +91-0291-2740742, Fax: +91-0291-2740531, E-mail: ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1771-2787
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kato Y, Sugioka A, Kojima M, Kiguchi G, Mii S, Uchida Y, Takahara T, Uyama I. Initial experience with robotic liver resection: Audit of 120 consecutive cases at a single center and comparison with open and laparoscopic approaches. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2023; 30:72-90. [PMID: 35737850 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE Surgical outcomes and utility of robotic liver resection (RLR) are undefined. METHODS We retrospectively studied perioperative and long-term outcomes of the single-center 120 RLRs including non-anatomic (NAR, n = 58) and anatomic (AR, n = 62) resections. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of RLR, perioperative outcomes of RLR (n = 103) were compared to those of open (OLR, n = 495) or laparoscopic (LLR, n = 451) resection in liver-only resections without reconstruction, using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). The changing trends from the earlier to the later RLR cases were assessed. Long-term outcomes were compared between RLR and LLR. RESULTS Various types of RLR with different surgical difficulties were performed, with mostly comparable postoperative morbidity between AR and NAR, or among AR subtypes. In segmentectomy and sectionectomy cases, perioperative outcomes significantly improved in the later period. In comparison between PSM-selected OLR and RLR cases (87:87), RLR had significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. PSM-selected LLR and RLR cases (91:91) showed comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after RLR for newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastasis were comparable to those after LLR. CONCLUSIONS RLR is applicable to various types of liver resection with acceptable perioperative and long-term outcomes in select patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yutaro Kato
- Department of Advanced Robotic and Endoscopic Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- International Medical Center, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Masayuki Kojima
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Gozo Kiguchi
- Department of Surgery, Hirakata Kosai Hospital, Hirakata, Japan
| | - Satoshi Mii
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Yuichiro Uchida
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | | | - Ichiro Uyama
- Department of Advanced Robotic and Endoscopic Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Ayabe RI, Azimuddin A, Tran Cao HS. Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:1779-1787. [PMID: 35488913 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02523-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation. PURPOSE The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon. CONCLUSIONS Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reed I Ayabe
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Ahad Azimuddin
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Data Resources for Evaluating the Economic and Financial Consequences of Surgical Care in the United States. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2022; 93:e17-e29. [PMID: 35358106 DOI: 10.1097/ta.0000000000003631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V.
Collapse
|
28
|
Zwart MJW, Görgec B, Arabiyat A, Nota CLM, van der Poel MJ, Fichtinger RS, Berrevoet F, van Dam RM, Aldrighetti L, Fuks D, Hoti E, Edwin B, Besselink MG, Abu Hilal M, Hagendoorn J, Swijnenburg RJ. Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery. HPB (Oxford) 2022; 24:322-331. [PMID: 34772622 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.08.939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2021] [Revised: 07/29/2021] [Accepted: 08/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking. METHODS An anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association. RESULTS The survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50-140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16-40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21-30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years' time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery. CONCLUSION In the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurice J W Zwart
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Burak Görgec
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Istituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Abdullah Arabiyat
- Department of Surgery, The Royal Lancaster Infirmary, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay, United Kingdom
| | - Carolijn L M Nota
- Department of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center/Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht (RAKU), Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marcel J van der Poel
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Robert S Fichtinger
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Frederik Berrevoet
- Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Ronald M van Dam
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | - Luca Aldrighetti
- Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - David Fuks
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Emir Hoti
- Department of Surgery, Saint Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Bjørn Edwin
- Interventional Centre and Department of Hepato-pancreato-biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Medicine, University in Oslo, Norway
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Istituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
| | - Jeroen Hagendoorn
- Department of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center/Regional Academic Cancer Center Utrecht (RAKU), Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
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
|
30
|
Spiegelberg J, Iken T, Diener MK, Fichtner-Feigl S. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14020265. [PMID: 35053429 PMCID: PMC8773643 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14020265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2021] [Revised: 12/26/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy. Abstract Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.
Collapse
|
31
|
Machado MAC, Lobo-Filho MM, Mattos BH, Ardengh AO, Makdissi FF. ROBOTIC LIVER RESECTION. REPORT OF THE FIRST 50 CASES. ARQUIVOS DE GASTROENTEROLOGIA 2021; 58:514-519. [PMID: 34909859 DOI: 10.1590/s0004-2803.202100000-92] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection. OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections. METHODS This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference. RESULTS The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed. CONCLUSION The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.
Collapse
|
32
|
Sucandy I, Jacoby H, Crespo K, Syblis C, App S, Ignatius J, Ross S, Rosemurgy A. A Single Institution's Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy. Am Surg 2021:31348211047500. [PMID: 34798777 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211047500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional "open" method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020. RESULTS A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy (P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes (P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL (P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring "open" conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy (P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% (P = .65) and 9% vs 10% (P = .81), respectively. DISCUSSION Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Harel Jacoby
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Cameron Syblis
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Samantha App
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Joshua Ignatius
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Sharona Ross
- Digestive Health Institute, 4422AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10225265. [PMID: 34830547 PMCID: PMC8653962 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10225265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2021] [Revised: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/09/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.
Collapse
|
34
|
Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic verse Laparoscopic Liver Surgery in Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM). SURGERIES 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/surgeries2040035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic CRLM surgery, and directly comparing their respective effectiveness. Methodology: A literature search was performed and all studies that reported on operative characteristics, oncological outcomes for CRLM, morbidity or mortality and cost-effectiveness on robotic or laparoscopic surgery were included. The study design was in keeping with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From the initial 606 manuscripts identified, 19 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 1340 patients with 1194 LLR (Laparoscopic Liver Resection) and 146 RLR (Robotic Liver Resection) cases were analysed. Within the LLR group, the average tumour size excised was 32.1 mm compared to the RLR group of 33.8 mm. The average operative time in the LLR was 193 min, CI of 95% (147.4 min to 238.6 min) compared to RLR 257 min, CI of 95% (201.5 min to 313.8 min) with a p-value < 0.0001. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RLR group (210 mL) compared with the LLR group (246 mL). Conclusion: Despite the higher operative cost, RLRs do not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss and excision of larger CRLMs. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favourable with LLRs. Our study has shown that robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.
Collapse
|
35
|
Dreifuss NH, Mangano A, Aguiluz G, Mehta V, Koppe S, Berkelhammer C, Giulianotti PC. Colonic leiomyoma mimicking a liver tumor: an unusual diagnosis after en-block robotic resection. J Surg Case Rep 2021; 2021:rjab418. [PMID: 34567524 PMCID: PMC8460277 DOI: 10.1093/jscr/rjab418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2021] [Accepted: 08/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Colonic leiomyomas are rare. Their clinical presentation ranges from asymptomatic polyps detected on endoscopy to large symptomatic abdominopelvic masses. Imaging findings are usually non-specific, and percutaneous biopsy might help with differential diagnosis. However, radical surgery with negative margins is ultimately needed to rule out malignancy. We describe an uncommon presentation of a colonic leiomyoma mimicking a right hepatic lobe tumor on preoperative imaging. The robotic approach allowed a precise abdominal exploration with confirmation of colonic and hepatic infiltration and subsequent oncological en-block resection. Surgeons operating on hepatic tumors close to the right colic flexure should be aware of this diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolás H Dreifuss
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alberto Mangano
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Gabriela Aguiluz
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Vikas Mehta
- Department of Pathology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Sean Koppe
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Charles Berkelhammer
- Department of Gastroenterology, Advocate-Aurora Christ Medicine Center, Oak Lawn, IL, USA
| | - Pier C Giulianotti
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Tsekouras K, Spartalis E, Mamakos N, Tsourouflis G, Nikiteas NI, Dimitroulis D. The Use of Robotics in Surgery of Benign Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review. Surg Innov 2021; 29:258-268. [PMID: 34275339 DOI: 10.1177/15533506211031414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical treatment of benign liver diseases (BLD) remains a field of conflict, due to increased risk and high complication rate. However, the introduction of minimally invasive surgery has led to increased number of patients with BLD being treated surgically, with similar outcomes and fewer complications. Current data support the application of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) in surgical treatment of liver malignancies, but there are insufficient data concerning the application of robotic surgery in BLD. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the application of RS in BLD surgery. METHODS After a thorough search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, 12 studies were considered eligible with a total number of 115 patients with BLD. DISCUSSION In brief, RS appears to be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery. When compared to open surgery, RS is associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complication rate. Regarding LS, the peri- and postoperative outcomes were similar, but RS can overcome the technical limitations of LS. However, the cost of RS remains a major drawback in its widespread application. CONCLUSIONS Considering our findings, RS can be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery, but further studies are needed to justify the introduction of RS in liver surgery and to define the type of patients that will benefit the most from it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantinos Tsekouras
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Eleftherios Spartalis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Mamakos
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Gerasimos Tsourouflis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos I Nikiteas
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Dimitroulis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Vining CC, Skowron KB, Hogg ME. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes. Updates Surg 2021; 73:799-814. [PMID: 33484423 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-00973-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles C Vining
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kinga B Skowron
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Melissa E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Walgreens Building, Floor 2, 2650 Ridge Road, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Aziz H, Wang JC, Genyk Y, Sheikh MR. Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database. J Robot Surg 2021; 16:401-407. [PMID: 34033071 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01257-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hassan Aziz
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA
| | - Johnny C Wang
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA
| | - Yuri Genyk
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA
| | - Mohd Raashid Sheikh
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Stewart C, Wong P, Warner S, Raoof M, Singh G, Fong Y, Melstrom L. Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:700-706. [PMID: 32988754 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2020] [Revised: 08/08/2020] [Accepted: 09/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The advantages of robotic liver surgery are strongest for minor resections, where incision size drives recovery time, but cost remains a concern. We hypothesized that patients who underwent robotic minor liver resections would have superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in decreased cost. METHODS We queried the medical record and cost data for patients who underwent open or robotic minor (1-2 segment) liver resection from 1/2016-8/2019. Financial data were normalized to Medicare reimbursements. RESULTS There were 87 patients who underwent minor liver resections (robotic n = 46, open n = 41). Specimen size (173 ± 203 vs 257 ± 481 cm3), surgical duration (233 ± 87 vs 227 ± 83 min), estimated blood loss (187 ± 236 vs 194 ± 165 mL), and margin status (89% vs 93% R0) were similar for robotic and open resections respectively, yet complications (3/46, 7% vs 10/41, 24%, p = 0.02) and length of stay (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) were significantly lower for patients who underwent robotic resection. These factors contributed to minor robotic liver resections costing $534 less than open resections ($3597 ± 1823 vs $4131 ± 1532, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION Patients undergoing robotic minor hepatectomy had superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in lower total cost of care when compared to open minor hepatectomy. Financial considerations should not adversely influence selection of a robotic approach for minor hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camille Stewart
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA.
| | - Paul Wong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Susanne Warner
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Mustafa Raoof
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Gagandeep Singh
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| | - Laleh Melstrom
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Aziz H, Hanna K, Lashkari N, Ahmad NUS, Genyk Y, Sheikh MR. Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections. Am Surg 2021; 88:2331-2337. [PMID: 33861658 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211011063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Most liver resections performed in the United States are open. With the ever-increasing role of robotic surgery, our study's role is to assess national outcomes based on the surgical approach. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Readmission Database (NRD). We selected patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was performed to match the three groups in terms of demographics, hospital characteristics, and resection type. Our primary outcome was 6-month readmission rates and associated costs. RESULTS 3,872 patients were included in the analysis (open = 3,420, laparoscopic = 343, and robotic = 109). Robotic liver resection has lower 6-month readmission rates (18.3%) than the laparoscopic (26.7%) and open (30%) counterparts. The robotic approach was more cost-effective ($127,716.56 ± 12,567.31) than the open ($157,880.82 ± 18,560.2) and laparoscopic approach ($152,060.78 ± 8,890.13) in terms of the total cost which includes cost per readmission. CONCLUSIONS There is a financial benefit of using robotics in terms of cost, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates in patients undergoing liver resection, cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hassan Aziz
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Kamil Hanna
- Department of Surgery, 8138Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, United States
| | - Nassim Lashkari
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | | | - Yuri Genyk
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Mohd Raashid Sheikh
- Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Miller HP, Hakim A, Kellish A, Wozniak M, Gaughan J, Sensenig R, Atabek UM, Spitz FR, Hong YK. 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. Am Surg 2021; 88:2886-2892. [PMID: 33861656 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211011124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henry P Miller
- Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Abraham Hakim
- 363994Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Alec Kellish
- 363994Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Marisa Wozniak
- 363994Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - John Gaughan
- Cooper Research Institute, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Richard Sensenig
- Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Umur M Atabek
- Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Francis R Spitz
- Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Young K Hong
- Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and can be performed with results practically equal to those in open surgery. There are different techniques of parenchyma dissection and hemostasis available for the safe performance of minor and major resections, both laparoscopically and robotics based. Due to its technical options robotics-based surgery is a further development of laparoscopy. Expertise in minimally invasive and in liver surgery are essential prerequisites.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Bauschke
- Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07740, Jena, Deutschland.
| | - Herman Kissler
- Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07740, Jena, Deutschland
| | - Utz Settmacher
- Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07740, Jena, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Ziogas IA, Evangeliou AP, Mylonas KS, Athanasiadis DI, Cherouveim P, Geller DA, Schulick RD, Alexopoulos SP, Tsoulfas G. Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2021; 22:585-604. [PMID: 33740153 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01277-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2020] [Accepted: 02/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR). METHODS We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. RESULTS Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR. CONCLUSION LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ioannis A Ziogas
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1313 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37232-4753, USA. .,Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.
| | - Alexandros P Evangeliou
- Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.,Aristotle University of Thessaloníki School of Medicine, Thessaloníki, Greece
| | - Konstantinos S Mylonas
- Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.,National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios I Athanasiadis
- Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece.,Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - David A Geller
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Richard D Schulick
- Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Sophoclis P Alexopoulos
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1313 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37232-4753, USA
| | - Georgios Tsoulfas
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Medicine, Thessaloníki, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Predicting the Risk of Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Resection of Primary Liver Tumors. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10040685. [PMID: 33578875 PMCID: PMC7916554 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Revised: 01/23/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Minimal-invasive techniques are increasingly applied in clinical practice and have contributed towards improving postoperative outcomes. While comparing favorably with open surgery in terms of safety, the occurrence of severe complications remains a grave concern. To date, no objective predictive system has been established to guide clinicians in estimating complication risks as the relative contribution of general patient health, liver function and surgical parameters remain unclear. Here, we perform a single-center analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection for primary hepatic malignancies since 2010. Among the 210 patients identified, 32 developed major complications. Several independent predictors were identified through a multivariate analysis, defining a preoperative model: diabetes, history of previous hepatectomy, surgical approach, alanine aminotransferase levels and lesion entity. The addition of operative time and whether conversion was required significantly improved predictions and were thus incorporated into the postoperative model. Both models were able to identify patients with major complications with acceptable performance (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for a preoperative model = 0.77 vs. postoperative model = 0.80). Internal validation was performed and confirmed the discriminatory ability of the models. An easily accessible online tool was deployed in order to estimate probabilities of severe complication without the need for manual calculation.
Collapse
|
45
|
Pesi B, Bencini L, Moraldi L, Tofani F, Batignani G, Bechi P, Farsi M, Annecchiarico M, Coratti A. Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2021; 31:468-474. [PMID: 33480668 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. RESULTS No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203). CONCLUSIONS The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedetta Pesi
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Lapo Bencini
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Luca Moraldi
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Federica Tofani
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Giacomo Batignani
- Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Paolo Bechi
- Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Marco Farsi
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Mario Annecchiarico
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| | - Andrea Coratti
- Division of Oncological and Robotic General Surgery, Careggi University Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Mathis-Ullrich F, Scheikl PM. [Robots in the operating room-(co)operation during surgery]. GASTROENTEROLOGE 2020; 16:25-34. [PMID: 33362879 PMCID: PMC7753502 DOI: 10.1007/s11377-020-00496-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Hintergrund Medizinrobotik birgt das Potenzial, chirurgische oder endoluminale Eingriffe zu verbessern, indem diese Technologie hochpräzise Bewegungen und übermenschliche Perzeption ermöglicht. Ziel der Arbeit Darstellung historischer, existierender und zukünftiger robotischer Assistenten sowie Herausstellung deren Auswirkungen auf die robotische Chirurgie und Endoskopie. Methoden Insbesondere werden historische Medizinroboter sowie konventionelle Telemanipulatoren vorgestellt und diese mit minimal-invasiven Kontinuumsrobotern und neuartigen robotischen Konzepten aus Praxis und Forschung verglichen. Zusätzlich wird eine Perspektive für die zukünftige Generation von Chirurgie- und Endoskopierobotern geboten. Schlussfolgerung Roboterassistierte Medizin bietet einen großen Mehrwert für die Qualität der Intervention sowie Sicherheit für Chirurgen und Patientinnen. Zukünftig werden vermehrt Prozessschritte (teil‑)autonom in Kooperation mit Experten durchgeführt.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Mathis-Ullrich
- Institut für Anthropomatik und Robotik (IAR), Health Robotics and Automation Laboratory (HERA), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Engler-Bunte-Ring 8, 76131 Karlsruhe, Deutschland
| | - P M Scheikl
- Institut für Anthropomatik und Robotik (IAR), Health Robotics and Automation Laboratory (HERA), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Engler-Bunte-Ring 8, 76131 Karlsruhe, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Ciria R, Berardi G, Alconchel F, Briceño J, Choi GH, Wu YM, Sugioka A, Troisi RI, Salloum C, Soubrane O, Pratschke J, Martinie J, Tsung A, Araujo R, Sucandy I, Tang CN, Wakabayashi G. The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2020; 29:181-197. [PMID: 33200536 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2020] [Revised: 10/22/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis. METHODS A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly. RESULTS After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000. CONCLUSIONS The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruben Ciria
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Giammauro Berardi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan.,Department of Human Structure and Repair of Man, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Felipe Alconchel
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital (IMIB-Arrixaca), Murcia, Spain
| | - Javier Briceño
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yao-Ming Wu
- Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Roberto Ivan Troisi
- Department of Human Structure and Repair of Man, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.,Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.,Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Al Faisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Chady Salloum
- Service de Chirurgie Hépato-Bilio-Pancréatique et Transplantation Hépatique, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.,Centre Hépato-Biliaire, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Sud, Villejuif, France
| | - Olivier Soubrane
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, Paris, France
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - John Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Allan Tsung
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Raphael Araujo
- Barretos Cancer Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.,Escola Paulista de Medicina-UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil.,Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Disease Institute, Florida Hospital Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Chung N Tang
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Lee KF, Chong C, Cheung S, Wong J, Fung A, Lok HT, Lo E, Lai P. Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study. Surg Endosc 2020; 35:2316-2323. [PMID: 33185767 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07645-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2019] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive approach has been increasingly applied in liver resection. However, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is technically demanding and is practiced only in expert centers around the world. Conversely, use of robot may help to overcome the difficulty and facilitate major hepatectomy. METHODS Between September 2010 and March 2019, 151 patients received robotic hepatectomy for various indications in our center. 36 patients received robotic hemihepatectomy: 26 left hepatectomy and 10 right hepatectomy. During the same period, 737 patients received open hepatectomy and out of these, 173 patients received open hemihepatectomy. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS After matching, there were 36 patients each in the robotic and open group. The two groups were comparable in demographic data, type of hemihepatectomy, underlying pathology, size of tumor, and background cirrhosis. Conversion was needed in 3 patients (8.3%) in the robotic group. There was no operative mortality. The operative blood loss and resection margin were similar. Though not significantly different, there was a higher rate of complications in the robotic group (36.1% vs. 22.2%) and this difference was mostly driven by higher intra-abdominal collection (16.7% vs. 5.6%) and bile leak (5.6% vs. 2.8%). Operative time was significantly longer (400.8 ± 136.1 min vs 255.4 ± 74.4 min, P < 0.001) but the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (median 5 days vs 6.5 days, P = 0.040) in the robotic group. When right and left hepatectomy were analyzed separately, the advantage of shorter hospital stay remained in left but not right hepatectomy. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no difference between the two groups in 5-year overall and disease-free survival. CONCLUSION Compared with the open approach, robotic hemihepatectomy has longer operation time but shorter hospital stay. Thus, use of robot is feasible and effective in hemihepatectomy with the benefit of shorter hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kit-Fai Lee
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
| | - Charing Chong
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - Sunny Cheung
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - John Wong
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - Andrew Fung
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - Hon-Ting Lok
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - Eugene Lo
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| | - Paul Lai
- Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, 30-32, Ngan Shing Street, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Zhao Z, Yin Z, Li M, Jiang N, Liu R. State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis. Updates Surg 2020; 73:977-987. [PMID: 33146887 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00906-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhiming Zhao
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhuzeng Yin
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Mengyang Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Fourth Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Nan Jiang
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Rong Liu
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Affiliation(s)
- Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|