Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 583–590 | Cite as

Robotic Versus Open Minor Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: A Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Study

  • Carolijn L. Nota
  • Yanghee Woo
  • Mustafa Raoof
  • Thomas Boerner
  • I. Quintus Molenaar
  • Gi Hong Choi
  • T. Peter Kingham
  • Karen Latorre
  • Inne H. M. Borel Rinkes
  • Jeroen Hagendoorn
  • Yuman FongEmail author
Hepatobiliary Tumors
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Minor liver resections of posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7, 8) are challenging to perform laparoscopically and are mainly performed using an open approach. We determined the feasibility of robotic resections of posterosuperior segments and compared short-term outcomes with the open approach.

Methods

Data on open and robotic minor (≤ 3 segments) liver resections including the posterosuperior segments, performed between 2009 and 2016, were collected retrospectively from four hospitals. Robotic and open liver resections were compared, before and after propensity score matching.

Results

In total, 51 robotic and 145 open resections were included. After matching, 31 robotic resections were compared with 31 open resections. Median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3–7) for the robotic group, versus 8 days (IQR 6–10) for the open group (p < 0.001). Median operative time was 222 min (IQR 164–505) for robotic cases versus 231 min (IQR 190–301) for open cases (p = 0.668). Median estimated blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100–400) versus 300 mL (IQR 125–750), respectively (p = 0.212). In the robotic group, one patient (3%) had a major complication, versus three patients (10%) in the open group (p = 0.612). Readmissions were similar—10% in the robotic group versus 6% in the open group (p > 0.99). There was no mortality in either group.

Conclusion

Minor robotic liver resections of the posterosuperior segments are safe and feasible and display a shorter length of stay than open resections in selected patients at expert centers.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank F.J. Smits, MD, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands, and R. Nelson, Ph.D., Department of Information Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA, for support during statistical analyses. The authors thank I.M. Newman, Ph.D., Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA, for scientific editing.

Disclosures

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number P30CA033572. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest

Yanghee Woo is a consultant for Ethicon and Verb Surgical. Yuman Fong is a scientific consultant to Medtronics Inc. Carolijn L. Nota, Mustafa Raoof, Thomas Boerner, I. Quintus Molenaar, Gi Hong Choi, T. Peter Kingham, Karen Latorre, Inne H. M. Borel Rinkes and Jeroen Hagendoorn have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Jin S, Fu Q, Wuyun G, et al. Management of post-hepatectomy complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(44):7983–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing. Ann Surg. 2016; 263(4):761–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fretland AA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjornelv GMW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018; 267(2):199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville statement, 2008. Ann Surg. 2009; 250(5):825–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg. 2015; 261(4):619–29.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ishizawa T, Gumbs AA, Kokudo N, et al. Laparoscopic segmentectomy of the liver: from segment I to VIII. Ann Surg. 2012; 256(6):959–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herman P, Krüger JAP, Perini MV, et al. Laparoscopic hepatic posterior sectionectomy: a hand-assisted approach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(4):1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ogiso S, Conrad C, Araki K, et al. Laparoscopic transabdominal with transdiaphragmatic access improves resection of difficult posterosuperior liver lesions. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(2):358–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okuno M, Goumard C, Mizuno T, et al. Operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases located in the posterosuperior liver: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32(4):1776–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nota C, Molenaar IQ, van Hillegersberg R, et al. Robotic liver resection including the posterosuperior segments: initial experience. J Surg Res. 2016; 206(1):133–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leung U, Fong Y. Robotic liver surgery. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2014; 3(5):288–94.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(8):701–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melstrom LG, Warner SG, Woo Y, et al. Selecting incision-dominant cases for robotic liver resection: towards outpatient hepatectomy with rapid recovery. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2018;7(2):77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nota CL, Rinkes IHB, Molenaar IQ, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and pooled analysis of minor and major hepatectomies. HPB (Oxford). 2016; 18(2):113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014; 12(12):1495–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reddy SK, Barbas AS, Turley RS, et al. A standard definition of major hepatectomy: resection of four or more liver segments. HPB (Oxford) 2011; 13(7):494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Couinaud C. Liver lobes and segments: notes on the anatomical architecture and surgery of the liver. Presse Med. 1954; 62(33):709–12 (in French).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garrido MM, Kelley AS, Paris J, et al. Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv Res. 2014; 49(5):1701–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cluver L, Boyes M, Orkin M, et al. Child-focused state cash transfers and adolescent risk of HIV infection in South Africa: a propensity-score-matched case-control study. Lancet Glob Health. 2013; 1(6):e362–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for tumors located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, with a special reference to overcoming current limitations on tumor location. Surgery. 2008; 144(1):32–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Troisi RI, Montalti R, Van Limmen JG, et al. Risk factors and management of conversions to an open approach in laparoscopic liver resection: analysis of 265 consecutive cases. HPB (Oxford). 2014; 16(1):75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halls MC, Cipriani F, Berardi G, et al. Conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events results in significantly worst outcomes during laparoscopic liver resection: lessons learned from a multicenter review of 2861 cases. Ann Surg. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002332.
  26. 26.
    Patriti A, Cipriani F, Ratti F, et al. Robot-assisted versus open liver resection in the right posterior section. JSLS. 2014; 18(3):e2014.00040.  https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peters B, Armijo P, Krause C, Choudhury S, Oleynikov D. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1636–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolijn L. Nota
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yanghee Woo
    • 1
  • Mustafa Raoof
    • 1
  • Thomas Boerner
    • 3
  • I. Quintus Molenaar
    • 2
  • Gi Hong Choi
    • 4
  • T. Peter Kingham
    • 3
  • Karen Latorre
    • 4
  • Inne H. M. Borel Rinkes
    • 2
  • Jeroen Hagendoorn
    • 2
  • Yuman Fong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCity of Hope National Medical Center, City of Hope Hospital DuarteDuarteUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryYonsei University Severance HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations