Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgery
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 9/2023

19-05-2023 | Liver Surgery | Original Scientific Report

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

Authors: Thomas Winckelmans, Dennis A. Wicherts, Isabelle Parmentier, Celine De Meyere, Chris Verslype, Mathieu D’Hondt

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 9/2023

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
Crocerossa F, Carbonara U, Cantiello F et al (2021) Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 80:428–439CrossRefPubMed
2.
Roth AE, Thornley CJ, Blackstone RP (2020) Outcomes in bariatric and metabolic surgery: an updated 5-year review. Curr Obes Rep 9:380–389CrossRefPubMed
3.
Solaini L, Bocchino A, Avanzolini A et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 37:1497–1507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Görgec B, Zwart M, Nota CL et al (2022) Implementation and Outcome of robotic liver surgery in The Netherlands: a nationwide analysis. Ann Surg 277:e1269CrossRefPubMed
5.
Muaddi H, El Hafid M, Choi WJ et al (2021) Clinical outcomes of robotic surgery compared to conventional surgical approaches (laparoscopic or open): a systematic overview of reviews. Ann Surg 273:467–473CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ciria R, Berardi G, Alconchel F et al (2022) The impact of robotics in liver surgery: a worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 29:181–197CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kim JK, Park JS, Han DH et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver. Surg Endosc 30:4756–4764CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hu Y, Guo K, Xu J et al (2021) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg [Internet] 44:615–628CrossRefPubMed
9.
Packiam V, Barlett DL, Tohme S et al (2012) Minimally-invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 16:2233–2238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Cipriani F, Fiorentini G, Magistri P et al (2021) Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 23:1–16
11.
Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G et al (2011) Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 25:3815–3824CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
D’Hondt M, Willems E, Parmentier I et al (2020) Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: a single-center comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol [Internet] 46:539–547CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526PubMed
16.
Halls MC, Berardi G, Cipriani F et al (2018) Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 105:1182–1191CrossRefPubMed
17.
Montalti R, Berardi G, Patriti A et al (2015) Outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21:8441–8451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Hu L, Yao L, Li X et al (2018) Effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver neoplasms: a meta-analysis of retrospective studies. Asian J Surg 41:401–416CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zhao Z, Yin Z, Li M et al (2021) State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis. Updates Surg 73:977–987CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hawksworth J, Radkani P, Nguyen B et al (2022) Improving safety of robotic major hepatectomy with extrahepatic inflow control and laparoscopic CUSA parenchymal transection: technical description and initial experience. Surg Endosc [Internet] 36:3270–3276CrossRefPubMed
21.
Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259:549–555CrossRefPubMed
22.
Wu Y-M, Hu R-H, Lai H-S et al (2014) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection. Asian J Surg 37:53–57CrossRefPubMed
23.
Efanov M, Salimgereeva D, Alikhanov R et al (2023) Comparison between the difficulty of laparoscopic limited liver resections of tumors located in segment 7 versus segment 8: an international multicenter propensity-score matched study. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 30(2):177–191CrossRef
24.
Labadie KP, Droullard DJ, Lois AW et al (2022) IWATE criteria are associated with perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy: a retrospective review of 225 resections. Surg Endosc 36:889–895CrossRefPubMed
25.
Yu Y-D, Kim K-H, Jung D-H et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 399:1039–1045CrossRef
26.
Stewart C, Wong P, Warner S et al (2021) Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care. HPB 23:700–706CrossRefPubMed
27.
Daskalaki D, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Brown M et al (2017) Financial impact of the robotic approach in liver surgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27:375–382CrossRef
28.
Cortolillo N, Patel C, Parreco J et al (2019) Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy. J Robot Surg 13:557–565CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G et al (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ziogas IA, Giannis D, Esagian SM et al (2021) Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 35:524–535CrossRefPubMed
32.
Miller HP, Hakim A, Kellish A et al (2022) 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 88:2886–2892CrossRefPubMed
33.
Aziz H, Hanna K, Lashkari N et al (2022) Hospitalization costs and outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resections. Am Surg 88:2331–2337CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections
Authors
Thomas Winckelmans
Dennis A. Wicherts
Isabelle Parmentier
Celine De Meyere
Chris Verslype
Mathieu D’Hondt
Publication date
19-05-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07060-y

Other articles of this Issue 9/2023

World Journal of Surgery 9/2023 Go to the issue

Original Scientific Report

Management and Outcome of Blunt Pancreatic Trauma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Editorial Perspective

We Asked the Experts: Fiberoptic Laryngoscopy Needs to be Included as an Adjunct to Primary Survey (ATLS) After Neck Trauma

Original Scientific Report

Failure to Rescue in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Regional Australian Experience

Editorial Perspective

The World Journal of Surgery is Pleased to Welcome Dr David Hughes to Our Editorial Board

Surgery in Low and Middle Income Countries

Simulation-Based Breast Biopsy Training Using a Low-Cost Gelatin-Based Breast Model in Rwanda

Editorial Perspective

The World Journal of Surgery Welcomes A/Professor Savio George Alberto da Piedade Barreto of South Australia as a New Associate Editor