Robotic, laparoscopic, and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis of perioperative outcomes

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Surgery in practice and science Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100196
R.M. O'Connell , M. Bucheeri , O. Quidwai , M. Bourke , TK Gallagher , E Hoti
{"title":"Robotic, laparoscopic, and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis of perioperative outcomes","authors":"R.M. O'Connell ,&nbsp;M. Bucheeri ,&nbsp;O. Quidwai ,&nbsp;M. Bourke ,&nbsp;TK Gallagher ,&nbsp;E Hoti","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Minimally invasive surgery may confer perioperative benefit to patients with resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) but published data are limited. Robotic resection for HCC has recently been introduced in our institution, and the goal of this study is to benchmark patient outcomes against open and laparoscopic surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective evaluation was performed of all patients undergoing liver resection for HCC in our institution between September 2012 and November 2022 using a prospectively maintained database. Data were collected relating to demographics, pre-operative staging, co-morbidities, type of resection, operative time, surgical technique, histology, length of stay, and post-operative complications. A propensity score matched analysis was performed to compare outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>106 patients were identified. 66 (62%) had open, 26 (25%) laparoscopic, and 14 (13%) had a robotic resection. Using propensity matched analysis, robotic liver resections for HCC were associated with a non-significantly lower risk of ICU admission than open surgery (0 v 21%, <em>p</em> = 0.16). A lower risk of conversion to open than laparoscopic surgery was seen within the unmatched cohort (0 v 23%, <em>p</em> = 0.07), albeit there was a significantly longer median operative times than open or laparoscopic resection (285 min v 192 and 147 respectively, <em>p</em>&lt;0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our data show that robotic hepatectomy is a safe alternative to open and laparoscopic resection for HCC in terms of perioperative outcomes despite increased operative times. Longer-term data will be needed to confirm the oncological safety of this approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgery may confer perioperative benefit to patients with resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) but published data are limited. Robotic resection for HCC has recently been introduced in our institution, and the goal of this study is to benchmark patient outcomes against open and laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation was performed of all patients undergoing liver resection for HCC in our institution between September 2012 and November 2022 using a prospectively maintained database. Data were collected relating to demographics, pre-operative staging, co-morbidities, type of resection, operative time, surgical technique, histology, length of stay, and post-operative complications. A propensity score matched analysis was performed to compare outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

Results

106 patients were identified. 66 (62%) had open, 26 (25%) laparoscopic, and 14 (13%) had a robotic resection. Using propensity matched analysis, robotic liver resections for HCC were associated with a non-significantly lower risk of ICU admission than open surgery (0 v 21%, p = 0.16). A lower risk of conversion to open than laparoscopic surgery was seen within the unmatched cohort (0 v 23%, p = 0.07), albeit there was a significantly longer median operative times than open or laparoscopic resection (285 min v 192 and 147 respectively, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Our data show that robotic hepatectomy is a safe alternative to open and laparoscopic resection for HCC in terms of perioperative outcomes despite increased operative times. Longer-term data will be needed to confirm the oncological safety of this approach.

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
肝细胞癌的机器人、腹腔镜和开放式肝切除术:围手术期结果的倾向评分匹配分析
微创手术可能会给可切除肝细胞癌(HCC)患者带来围手术期的益处,但已发表的数据有限。机器人肝细胞癌切除术最近被引入我们的机构,本研究的目的是对比开放和腹腔镜手术的患者结果。方法回顾性分析2012年9月至2022年11月在我院接受肝切除术的所有HCC患者,使用前瞻性维护的数据库。收集有关人口统计学、术前分期、合并症、切除类型、手术时间、手术技术、组织学、住院时间和术后并发症的数据。进行倾向评分匹配分析,比较开放手术、腹腔镜手术和机器人手术的结果。结果共发现106例患者。66例(62%)采用开放式手术,26例(25%)采用腹腔镜手术,14例(13%)采用机器人手术。使用倾向匹配分析,HCC机器人肝切除术与开放手术相比,ICU入院风险无显著性降低(0 vs 21%, p = 0.16)。在未匹配的队列中,转换为开放手术的风险低于腹腔镜手术(0 vs 23%, p = 0.07),尽管中位手术时间明显比开放或腹腔镜切除术长(285分钟vs 192和147分钟,p = 0.001)。结论:我们的数据显示,尽管手术次数增加,但就围手术期结果而言,机器人肝切除术是开放和腹腔镜肝切除术的安全选择。需要更长期的数据来证实这种方法的肿瘤学安全性。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 days
期刊最新文献
Costs of surgical futility in emergency laparotomy Respiratory dysfunction in whiplash associated disorders (WAD) with cervical plexus syndrome – A case report Surgical sharp debridement alongside maggot debridement therapy (MDT) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs): A systematic review of case reports Is there an impact of surgeon's experience on in-hospital outcome in patients with operatively treated proximal humerus and humerus shaft fractures? Operating room times differ for surgical fixation of metacarpal fractures: An analysis of two principally different techniques
×
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