Propensity Score-matched Donor and Recipient Outcomes: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1097/TP.0000000000005245
Na Reum Kim, Dai Hoon Han, Dong Jin Joo, Jae Geun Lee, Deok-Gie Kim, Myoung Soo Kim, Jin Sub Choi, Gi Hong Choi
{"title":"Propensity Score-matched Donor and Recipient Outcomes: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Donor Right Hepatectomy.","authors":"Na Reum Kim, Dai Hoon Han, Dong Jin Joo, Jae Geun Lee, Deok-Gie Kim, Myoung Soo Kim, Jin Sub Choi, Gi Hong Choi","doi":"10.1097/TP.0000000000005245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have examined the long-term outcomes of recipients in minimally invasive donor hepatectomies, particularly comparing robotic and laparoscopic donor procedures. Understanding these outcomes is crucial for optimizing surgical approaches and improving the overall success of living donor liver transplantation. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robotic donor right hepatectomy (RDRH) and laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) by evaluating total follow-up patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, single-center study included 117 and 118 donors who underwent RDRH and LDRH between March 2016 and June 2023, respectively. After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 71 donor-recipient pairs were included in each group. Donor and recipient complications were divided into early (within 90 d) and late (after 90 d) biliary and vascular complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the matched cohort, major complication rates of donors were similar in both groups. Bile duct (BD) variation was not significantly different; however, the rates of multiple BD openings (26.8% versus 54.9%; P = 0.001) and major biliary complications in recipients were higher in the LDRH group (22.5% versus 42.3%; P = 0.012). The cumulative biliary complication rate was significantly higher in the LDRH group. Early biliary complications were not significantly different; however, the rate of late biliary complications was higher in the LDRH group (11.3 versus 23.9%; P = 0.047).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RDRH demonstrated comparable postoperative complications to LDRH in donors but showed fewer recipient biliary complications. This could be attributed to the precision of robotic dissection and BD division, resulting in fewer multiple BD openings.</p>","PeriodicalId":23316,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000005245","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Few studies have examined the long-term outcomes of recipients in minimally invasive donor hepatectomies, particularly comparing robotic and laparoscopic donor procedures. Understanding these outcomes is crucial for optimizing surgical approaches and improving the overall success of living donor liver transplantation. This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robotic donor right hepatectomy (RDRH) and laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) by evaluating total follow-up patient outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective, single-center study included 117 and 118 donors who underwent RDRH and LDRH between March 2016 and June 2023, respectively. After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 71 donor-recipient pairs were included in each group. Donor and recipient complications were divided into early (within 90 d) and late (after 90 d) biliary and vascular complications.

Results: In the matched cohort, major complication rates of donors were similar in both groups. Bile duct (BD) variation was not significantly different; however, the rates of multiple BD openings (26.8% versus 54.9%; P = 0.001) and major biliary complications in recipients were higher in the LDRH group (22.5% versus 42.3%; P = 0.012). The cumulative biliary complication rate was significantly higher in the LDRH group. Early biliary complications were not significantly different; however, the rate of late biliary complications was higher in the LDRH group (11.3 versus 23.9%; P = 0.047).

Conclusions: RDRH demonstrated comparable postoperative complications to LDRH in donors but showed fewer recipient biliary complications. This could be attributed to the precision of robotic dissection and BD division, resulting in fewer multiple BD openings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
倾向得分匹配的供体和受体结果:机器人与腹腔镜供体右肝切除术
背景:很少有研究对微创供体肝切除术中受体的长期疗效进行研究,尤其是对机器人和腹腔镜供体手术进行比较。了解这些结果对于优化手术方法和提高活体肝移植的整体成功率至关重要。本研究旨在通过评估患者的总随访结果,比较机器人供体右肝切除术(RDRH)和腹腔镜供体右肝切除术(LDRH)的可行性和安全性:这项回顾性单中心研究纳入了2016年3月至2023年6月期间分别接受RDRH和LDRH手术的117名和118名供体。在进行1:1倾向评分匹配后,每组包括71对供体-受体。供体和受体并发症分为早期(90天内)和晚期(90天后)胆道和血管并发症:结果:在配对队列中,两组供体的主要并发症发生率相似。胆管(BD)变异无显著差异;然而,LDRH 组受者胆管多处开口率(26.8% 对 54.9%;P = 0.001)和主要胆道并发症发生率更高(22.5% 对 42.3%;P = 0.012)。LDRH 组的累积胆道并发症发生率明显更高。早期胆道并发症无明显差异;但LDRH组的晚期胆道并发症发生率更高(11.3%对23.9%;P = 0.047):结论:RDRH与LDRH的供体术后并发症相似,但受体胆道并发症较少。结论:RDRH对供体的术后并发症与LDRH相当,但受体胆道并发症较少,这可能归因于机器人解剖和BD分割的精确性,从而减少了多个BD开口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transplantation
Transplantation 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.30%
发文量
1906
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of The Transplantation Society, and the International Liver Transplantation Society, Transplantation is published monthly and is the most cited and influential journal in the field, with more than 25,000 citations per year. Transplantation has been the trusted source for extensive and timely coverage of the most important advances in transplantation for over 50 years. The Editors and Editorial Board are an international group of research and clinical leaders that includes many pioneers of the field, representing a diverse range of areas of expertise. This capable editorial team provides thoughtful and thorough peer review, and delivers rapid, careful and insightful editorial evaluation of all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Transplantation is committed to rapid review and publication. The journal remains competitive with a time to first decision of fewer than 21 days. Transplantation was the first in the field to offer CME credit to its peer reviewers for reviews completed. The journal publishes original research articles in original clinical science and original basic science. Short reports bring attention to research at the forefront of the field. Other areas covered include cell therapy and islet transplantation, immunobiology and genomics, and xenotransplantation. ​
期刊最新文献
Ischemia/Reperfusion Upregulates Genes Related to PANoptosis in Human Lung Transplants. Advances in Understanding the Complexities of Recurrent HCC Following Liver Transplantation. Another Viral Infection Linked to Posttransplant Diabetes Mellitus? Association of COVID-19 With Risk of Posttransplant Diabetes Mellitus. Comparative Outcome Analysis of Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib for Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1