File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1245/s10434-022-12216-6
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85136926633
- WOS: WOS:000843424000006
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Robotic versus laparoscopic left and extended left hepatectomy: an international multicenter study propensity score-matched analysis
Title | Robotic versus laparoscopic left and extended left hepatectomy: an international multicenter study propensity score-matched analysis |
---|---|
Authors | Sucandy, IswantoRayman, ShlomiLai, Eric C.Tang, Chung-NgaiChong, YvetteEfanov, MikhailFuks, DavidChoi, Gi-HongChong, Charing CChiow, Adrian K. HMarino, Marco VPrieto, MikelSucandy, IswantoRayman, ShlomiLai, Eric CTang, Chung-NgaiChong, YvetteEfanov, MikhailFuks, DavidChoi, Gi-HongChong, Charing CChiow, Adrian K. HMarino, Marco VPrieto, MikelLee, Jae-HoonKingham, T. PeterD’Hondt, MathieuTroisi, Roberto IChoi, Sung HoonSutcliffe, Robert PCheung, Tan-ToRotellar, FernandoPark, James OScatton, OlivierHan, Ho-SeongPratschke, JohannWang, XiaoyingLiu, RongGoh, Brian K. PChan, Chung-YipD’Silva, MizelleSchotte, HenriDe Meyere, CelineKrenzien, FelixSchmelzle, MoritzKadam, PrashantMontalti, RobertoLiu, QuLee, Kit-FaiSalimgereeva, DianaAlikhanov, RuslanLee, Lip SengGastaca, MikelJang, Jae YoungLim, ChetanaLabadie, Kevin P |
Issue Date | 23-Aug-2022 |
Publisher | Springer |
Citation | Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2022, v. 29, n. 13, p. 8398-8406 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade. Results: Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009). Conclusion: Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/338784 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 3.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.037 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Sucandy, Iswanto | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rayman, Shlomi | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lai, Eric C. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tang, Chung-Ngai | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chong, Yvette | - |
dc.contributor.author | Efanov, Mikhail | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fuks, David | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Gi-Hong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chong, Charing C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chiow, Adrian K. H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Marino, Marco V | - |
dc.contributor.author | Prieto, Mikel | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sucandy, Iswanto | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rayman, Shlomi | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lai, Eric C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tang, Chung-Ngai | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chong, Yvette | - |
dc.contributor.author | Efanov, Mikhail | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fuks, David | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Gi-Hong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chong, Charing C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chiow, Adrian K. H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Marino, Marco V | - |
dc.contributor.author | Prieto, Mikel | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Jae-Hoon | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kingham, T. Peter | - |
dc.contributor.author | D’Hondt, Mathieu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Troisi, Roberto I | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Sung Hoon | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sutcliffe, Robert P | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, Tan-To | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rotellar, Fernando | - |
dc.contributor.author | Park, James O | - |
dc.contributor.author | Scatton, Olivier | - |
dc.contributor.author | Han, Ho-Seong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pratschke, Johann | - |
dc.contributor.author | Wang, Xiaoying | - |
dc.contributor.author | Liu, Rong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Goh, Brian K. P | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chan, Chung-Yip | - |
dc.contributor.author | D’Silva, Mizelle | - |
dc.contributor.author | Schotte, Henri | - |
dc.contributor.author | De Meyere, Celine | - |
dc.contributor.author | Krenzien, Felix | - |
dc.contributor.author | Schmelzle, Moritz | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kadam, Prashant | - |
dc.contributor.author | Montalti, Roberto | - |
dc.contributor.author | Liu, Qu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Kit-Fai | - |
dc.contributor.author | Salimgereeva, Diana | - |
dc.contributor.author | Alikhanov, Ruslan | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Lip Seng | - |
dc.contributor.author | Gastaca, Mikel | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jang, Jae Young | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lim, Chetana | - |
dc.contributor.author | Labadie, Kevin P | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-11T10:31:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-11T10:31:30Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022-08-23 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2022, v. 29, n. 13, p. 8398-8406 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1068-9265 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/338784 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p> <span>Background: Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade. Results: Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009). Conclusion: Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay. </span> <br></p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Springer | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Annals of Surgical Oncology | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.title | Robotic versus laparoscopic left and extended left hepatectomy: an international multicenter study propensity score-matched analysis | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1245/s10434-022-12216-6 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85136926633 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 29 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 13 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 8398 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 8406 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1534-4681 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000843424000006 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1068-9265 | - |