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
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Feb;35(2):524-535.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08008-2. Epub 2020 Sep 28.

Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ioannis A Ziogas et al. Surg Endosc. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Background: The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results: Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51-3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72).

Conclusion: LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers.

Keywords: Laparoscopic hepatectomy; Major hepatectomy; Major liver resection; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive liver surgery; Robotic hepatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841 - PubMed
    1. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G (2016) Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg 263(4):761–777 - PubMed
    1. Ziogas IA, Tsoulfas G (2017) Advances and challenges in laparoscopic surgery in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastrointest Surg 9(12):233–245 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Kaneko H, Takagi S, Shiba T (1996) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy and left lateral segmentectomy: technique and results of a clinical series. Surgery 120(3):468–475 - PubMed
    1. Descottes B, Glineur D, Lachachi F, Valleix D, Paineau J, Hamy A et al (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection of benign liver tumors. Surg Endosc 17(1):23–30 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources