Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Jun;40(6):1422-8.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3446-9.

Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison

T Peter Kingham et al. World J Surg. 2016 Jun.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Jarnagin WR, et al. Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):397–406. discussion 406–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buell JF, et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):825–30. - PubMed
    1. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA. World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):831–41. - PubMed
    1. Nguyen KT, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):842–8. - PubMed
    1. Martin RC, 2nd, et al. Achieving RO resection for locally advanced gastric cancer: is it worth the risk of multiorgan resection? Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2002;194(5):568–77. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms