File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases

TitleRobotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases
Authors
Issue Date10-Apr-2023
PublisherAME Publishing
Citation
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition, 2023, v. 12, n. 2, p. 205-215 How to Cite?
Abstract

Background: The use of laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic liver resections (RLR) has been safely performed in many institutions for liver tumours. A large scale international multicenter study would provide stronger evidence and insight into application of these techniques for huge liver tumours ≥10 cm.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of 971 patients who underwent LLR and RLR for huge (≥10 cm) tumors at 42 international centers between 2002–2020.

Results: One hundred RLR and 699 LLR which met study criteria were included. The comparison between the 2 approaches for patients with huge tumors were performed using 1:3 propensity-score matching (PSM) (73 vs. 219). Before PSM, LLR was associated with significantly increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery, malignant pathology, liver cirrhosis and increased median blood. After PSM, RLR and LLR was associated with no significant difference in key perioperative outcomes including media operation time (242 vs. 290 min, P=0.286), transfusion rate rate (19.2% vs. 16.9%, P=0.652), median blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P=0.694), open conversion rate (8.2% vs. 11.0%, P=0.519), morbidity (28.8% vs. 21.9%, P=0.221), major morbidity (4.1% vs. 9.6%, P=0.152), mortality and postoperative length of stay (6 vs. 6 days, P=0.435).

Conclusions: RLR and LLR can be performed safely for selected patients with huge liver tumours with excellent outcomes. There was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes after RLR or LLR.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/331247
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 6.1

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, TT-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, R-
dc.contributor.authorCipriani, F-
dc.contributor.authorWang, XY-
dc.contributor.authorEfanov, M-
dc.contributor.authorFuks, D-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, GH-
dc.contributor.authorSyn, NL-
dc.contributor.authorChong, CCN-
dc.contributor.authorDi Benedetto, F-
dc.contributor.authorRobles-Campos, R-
dc.contributor.authorMazzaferro, V-
dc.contributor.authorRotellar, F-
dc.contributor.authorLopez-Ben, S-
dc.contributor.authorPark, JO-
dc.contributor.authorMejia, A-
dc.contributor.authorSucandy, I-
dc.contributor.authorChiow, AKH-
dc.contributor.authorMarino, MV-
dc.contributor.authorGastaca, M-
dc.contributor.authorLee, JH-
dc.contributor.authorKingham, TP-
dc.contributor.authorD'Hondt, M-
dc.contributor.authorChoi, SH-
dc.contributor.authorSutcliffe, RP-
dc.contributor.authorHan, HS-
dc.contributor.authorTang, CN-
dc.contributor.authorPratschke, J-
dc.contributor.authorTroisi, RI-
dc.contributor.authorWakabayashi, G-
dc.contributor.authorCherqui, D-
dc.contributor.authorGiuliante, F-
dc.contributor.authorAghayan, DL-
dc.contributor.authorEdwin, B-
dc.contributor.authorScatton, O-
dc.contributor.authorSugioka, A-
dc.contributor.authorLong, TCD-
dc.contributor.authorFondevila, C-
dc.contributor.authorAbu Hilal, M-
dc.contributor.authorRuzzenente, A-
dc.contributor.authorFerrero, A-
dc.contributor.authorHerman, P-
dc.contributor.authorChen, KH-
dc.contributor.authorAldrighetti, L-
dc.contributor.authorGoh, BKP-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-21T06:54:01Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-21T06:54:01Z-
dc.date.issued2023-04-10-
dc.identifier.citationHepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition, 2023, v. 12, n. 2, p. 205-215-
dc.identifier.issn2304-3881-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/331247-
dc.description.abstract<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic liver resections (RLR) has been safely performed in many institutions for liver tumours. A large scale international multicenter study would provide stronger evidence and insight into application of these techniques for huge liver tumours ≥10 cm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective review of 971 patients who underwent LLR and RLR for huge (≥10 cm) tumors at 42 international centers between 2002–2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred RLR and 699 LLR which met study criteria were included. The comparison between the 2 approaches for patients with huge tumors were performed using 1:3 propensity-score matching (PSM) (73 <em>vs.</em> 219). Before PSM, LLR was associated with significantly increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery, malignant pathology, liver cirrhosis and increased median blood. After PSM, RLR and LLR was associated with no significant difference in key perioperative outcomes including media operation time (242 <em>vs.</em> 290 min, P=0.286), transfusion rate rate (19.2% <em>vs.</em> 16.9%, P=0.652), median blood loss (200 <em>vs.</em> 300 mL, P=0.694), open conversion rate (8.2% <em>vs.</em> 11.0%, P=0.519), morbidity (28.8% <em>vs.</em> 21.9%, P=0.221), major morbidity (4.1% <em>vs.</em> 9.6%, P=0.152), mortality and postoperative length of stay (6 <em>vs.</em> 6 days, P=0.435).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RLR and LLR can be performed safely for selected patients with huge liver tumours with excellent outcomes. There was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes after RLR or LLR.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAME Publishing-
dc.relation.ispartofHepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleRobotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/hbsn-22-283-
dc.identifier.volume12-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage205-
dc.identifier.epage215-
dc.identifier.eissn2304-389X-
dc.identifier.issnl2304-3881-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats