S. Vancoillie , E. Willems , C. De Meyere , I. Parmentier , C. Verslype , Mathieu D'Hondt
{"title":"机器人与腹腔镜重复肝切除术:围手术期结果的单中心比较研究。","authors":"S. Vancoillie , E. Willems , C. De Meyere , I. Parmentier , C. Verslype , Mathieu D'Hondt","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>A repeat liver resection is considered a technically challenging procedure and therefor an open approach is frequently preferred. With the introduction of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic repeat liver resection demonstrates favorable results, however, limited data on robotic repeat liver resections exists. Our aim is to compare the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one for a repeat liver resection.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In a single-center retrospective analysis, we report the data of all minimally invasive repeat liver resections performed between September 2011 and August 2023. Short-term outcomes – including procedure time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality – were compared for a laparoscopic and a robotic approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 136 minimally invasive repeat liver resections were performed, of which 56 robotic procedures and 80 laparoscopic procedures. Both groups were similar in baseline demographics, diagnosis and surgical procedure. While the mean procedure time was slightly longer in the robotics group by 15 min (145min and 130min, p = 0.04), the median blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (30 ml and 80 ml, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards less conversions in the robotic group (n = 0 and n = 6, p = 0.42). Post-operative morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The robotic approach for minimally invasive repeat liver surgery is both safe and feasible, while also demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. In our experience, the ‘tunnel technique’ – which avoids dissection of intra-abdominal adhesions – is a key advantage of this approach.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 1","pages":"Article 109376"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic versus laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy: A comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes\",\"authors\":\"S. Vancoillie , E. Willems , C. De Meyere , I. Parmentier , C. Verslype , Mathieu D'Hondt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>A repeat liver resection is considered a technically challenging procedure and therefor an open approach is frequently preferred. With the introduction of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic repeat liver resection demonstrates favorable results, however, limited data on robotic repeat liver resections exists. Our aim is to compare the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one for a repeat liver resection.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In a single-center retrospective analysis, we report the data of all minimally invasive repeat liver resections performed between September 2011 and August 2023. Short-term outcomes – including procedure time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality – were compared for a laparoscopic and a robotic approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 136 minimally invasive repeat liver resections were performed, of which 56 robotic procedures and 80 laparoscopic procedures. Both groups were similar in baseline demographics, diagnosis and surgical procedure. While the mean procedure time was slightly longer in the robotics group by 15 min (145min and 130min, p = 0.04), the median blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (30 ml and 80 ml, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards less conversions in the robotic group (n = 0 and n = 6, p = 0.42). Post-operative morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The robotic approach for minimally invasive repeat liver surgery is both safe and feasible, while also demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. In our experience, the ‘tunnel technique’ – which avoids dissection of intra-abdominal adhesions – is a key advantage of this approach.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 109376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324014446\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324014446","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Robotic versus laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy: A comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes
Purpose
A repeat liver resection is considered a technically challenging procedure and therefor an open approach is frequently preferred. With the introduction of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic repeat liver resection demonstrates favorable results, however, limited data on robotic repeat liver resections exists. Our aim is to compare the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one for a repeat liver resection.
Methods
In a single-center retrospective analysis, we report the data of all minimally invasive repeat liver resections performed between September 2011 and August 2023. Short-term outcomes – including procedure time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality – were compared for a laparoscopic and a robotic approach.
Results
A total of 136 minimally invasive repeat liver resections were performed, of which 56 robotic procedures and 80 laparoscopic procedures. Both groups were similar in baseline demographics, diagnosis and surgical procedure. While the mean procedure time was slightly longer in the robotics group by 15 min (145min and 130min, p = 0.04), the median blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (30 ml and 80 ml, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards less conversions in the robotic group (n = 0 and n = 6, p = 0.42). Post-operative morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups.
Conclusion
The robotic approach for minimally invasive repeat liver surgery is both safe and feasible, while also demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. In our experience, the ‘tunnel technique’ – which avoids dissection of intra-abdominal adhesions – is a key advantage of this approach.
期刊介绍:
JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery.
The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.