Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 6/2016

01-06-2016 | Original Scientific Report

Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison

Authors: T. Peter Kingham, Universe Leung, Deborah Kuk, Mithat Gönen, Michael I. D’Angelica, Peter J. Allen, Ronald P. DeMatteo, Vincent P. Laudone, William R. Jarnagin, Yuman Fong

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In recent years, increasingly sophisticated tools have allowed for more complex robotic surgery. Robotic hepatectomy, however, is still in its infancy. Our goals were to examine the adoption of robotic hepatectomy and to compare outcomes between open and robotic liver resections.

Methods

The robotic hepatectomy experience of 64 patients was compared to a modern case-matched series of 64 open hepatectomy patients at the same center. Matching was according to benign/malignant diagnosis and number of segments resected. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. The main outcomes and measures were operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate (robotic to open), Pringle maneuver use, single non-anatomic wedge resection rate, resection margin size, complication rates (infectious, hepatic, pulmonary, cardiac), hospital stay length, ICU stay length, readmission rate, and 90-day mortality rate.

Results

Sixty-four robotic hepatectomies were performed in 2010–2014. Forty-one percent were segmental and 34 % were wedge resections. There was a 6 % conversion rate, a 3 % 90-day mortality rate, and an 11 % morbidity rate. Compared to 64 matched patients who underwent open hepatectomy (2004–2012), there was a shorter median OR time (p = 0.02), lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (p < 0.001). Eleven of the robotic cases were isolated resections of tumors in segments 2, 7, and 8.

Conclusions

Robotic hepatectomy is safe and effective. Increasing experience in more centers will allow definition of which hepatectomies can be performed robotically, and will enable optimization of outcomes and prospective examination of the economic cost of each approach.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jarnagin WR et al (2002) Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg 236(4):397–406 discussion 406–7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jarnagin WR et al (2002) Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg 236(4):397–406 discussion 406–7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Buell JF et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830CrossRefPubMed Buell JF et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841CrossRefPubMed Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Nguyen KT et al (2009) Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Ann Surg 250(5):842–848CrossRefPubMed Nguyen KT et al (2009) Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Ann Surg 250(5):842–848CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Martin RC 2nd et al (2002) Achieving RO resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: is it worth the risk of multiorgan resection? J Am Coll Surg 194(5):568–577CrossRefPubMed Martin RC 2nd et al (2002) Achieving RO resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: is it worth the risk of multiorgan resection? J Am Coll Surg 194(5):568–577CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Strasberg SM, Phillips C (2013) Use and dissemination of the brisbane 2000 nomenclature of liver anatomy and resections. Ann Surg 257(3):377–382CrossRefPubMed Strasberg SM, Phillips C (2013) Use and dissemination of the brisbane 2000 nomenclature of liver anatomy and resections. Ann Surg 257(3):377–382CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Memeo R et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of cirrhotic liver: a case-control study. World J Surg 38(11):2919–2926CrossRefPubMed Memeo R et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of cirrhotic liver: a case-control study. World J Surg 38(11):2919–2926CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Giuliani A et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for treating benign liver lesions: assessing quality of life in the first year after surgery. Updates Surg 66(2):127–133CrossRefPubMed Giuliani A et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for treating benign liver lesions: assessing quality of life in the first year after surgery. Updates Surg 66(2):127–133CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 149(1):29–39CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 149(1):29–39CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Choi GH et al (2012) Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc 26(8):2247–2258CrossRefPubMed Choi GH et al (2012) Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc 26(8):2247–2258CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Tsung A et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259(3):549–555CrossRefPubMed Tsung A et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259(3):549–555CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Troisi RI et al (2013) Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis. Int J Med Robot 9(2):160–166CrossRefPubMed Troisi RI et al (2013) Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis. Int J Med Robot 9(2):160–166CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Spampinato MG et al (2014) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 28(10):2973–2979CrossRefPubMed Spampinato MG et al (2014) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 28(10):2973–2979CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Berber E et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB (Oxford) 12(8):583–586CrossRef Berber E et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB (Oxford) 12(8):583–586CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tranchart H et al (2014) Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study. World J Surg 38(11):2904–2909CrossRefPubMed Tranchart H et al (2014) Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study. World J Surg 38(11):2904–2909CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison
Authors
T. Peter Kingham
Universe Leung
Deborah Kuk
Mithat Gönen
Michael I. D’Angelica
Peter J. Allen
Ronald P. DeMatteo
Vincent P. Laudone
William R. Jarnagin
Yuman Fong
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3446-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

World Journal of Surgery 6/2016 Go to the issue