World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1422–1428 | Cite as

Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison

  • 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
Original Scientific Report

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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by a grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (YF), and by two grants from the US National Institutes of Health: P30 CA033572 (YF) and P30 CA008748 (Cancer Center Support Grant).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Yuman Fong is a Scientific Advisor to both Covidien and Perfint. Drs. Kingham, Leung, Kuk, Gönen, D’Angelica, Allen, DeMatteo, Laudone, and Jarnagin have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buell JF et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):842–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):568–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strasberg SM, Phillips C (2013) Use and dissemination of the brisbane 2000 nomenclature of liver anatomy and resections. Ann Surg 257(3):377–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):2919–2926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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):127–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giulianotti PC et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 149(1):29–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi GH et al (2012) Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc 26(8):2247–2258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsung A et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259(3):549–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):160–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spampinato MG et al (2014) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 28(10):2973–2979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berber E et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB (Oxford) 12(8):583–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tranchart H et al (2014) Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study. World J Surg 38(11):2904–2909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Peter Kingham
    • 1
  • Universe Leung
    • 1
  • Deborah Kuk
    • 2
  • Mithat Gönen
    • 2
  • Michael I. D’Angelica
    • 1
  • Peter J. Allen
    • 1
  • Ronald P. DeMatteo
    • 1
  • Vincent P. Laudone
    • 1
  • William R. Jarnagin
    • 1
  • Yuman Fong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology & BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations