MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.
Author: Liu Q, Zhang W, Zhao JJ, Syn NL, Cipriani F, Alzoubi M, Aghayan DL, Siow TF, Lim C, Scatton O, Herman P, Coelho FF, Marino MV, Mazzaferro V, Chiow AKH, Sucandy I, Ivanecz A, Choi SH, Lee JH, Prieto M, Vivarelli M, Giuliante F, Dalla Valle B, Ruzzenente A, Yong CC, Chen Z, Yin M, Fondevila C, Efanov M, Morise Z, Di Benedetto F, Brustia R, Dalla Valle R, Boggi U, Geller D, Belli A, Memeo R, Gruttadauria S, Mejia A, Park JO, Rotellar F, Choi GH, Robles-Campos R, Wang X, Sutcliffe RP, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, Tang CN, Chong CCN, Lee KF, Meurs J, D'Hondt M, Monden K, Lopez-Ben S, Kingham TP, Ferrero A, Ettorre GM, Levi Sandri GB, Saleh M, Cherqui D, Zheng J, Liang X, Mazzotta A, Soubrane O, Wakabayashi G, Troisi RI, Cheung TT, Kato Y, Sugioka A, D'Silva M, Han HS, Nghia PP, Long TCD, Edwin B, Fuks D, Chen KH, Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Liu R, Goh BKP, International robotic and laparoscopic liver resection study group investigators.
Journal: Ann Surg; 2023 Dec 01; 278(6):969-975. PubMed ID: 37058429.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]