Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 32989544
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08008-2
Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Surg. 2023 Dec 1;109(12):4333-4346. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000750. Int J Surg. 2023. PMID: 37720925 Free PMC article.
-
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Apr 30;100(17):e25648. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025648. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021. PMID: 33907124 Free PMC article.
-
Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;52(12):1307-1314. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1373846. Epub 2017 Sep 7. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017. PMID: 28880729 Review.
-
Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study.Surg Endosc. 2014 Oct;28(10):2973-9. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3560-4. Epub 2014 May 23. Surg Endosc. 2014. PMID: 24853851
-
Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Aug;30(8):4783-4796. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0. Epub 2023 May 18. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37202573
Cited by
-
Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization.Surg Endosc. 2023 Aug;37(8):6228-6234. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10062-5. Epub 2023 May 12. Surg Endosc. 2023. PMID: 37173594
-
Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jan 19;16(2):420. doi: 10.3390/cancers16020420. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38275861 Free PMC article.
-
Benchmarks and Geographic Differences in Gallbladder Cancer Surgery: An International Multicenter Study.Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Aug;30(8):4904-4911. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13531-2. Epub 2023 May 6. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37149547 Free PMC article.
-
Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion: a propensity score-matching study.Surg Endosc. 2025 Jun;39(6):3492-3503. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11717-1. Epub 2025 Apr 18. Surg Endosc. 2025. PMID: 40251314
-
Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review.Cancers (Basel). 2022 Dec 26;15(1):142. doi: 10.3390/cancers15010142. Cancers (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36612137 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841 - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous