Minimally invasive techniques are growing for hepatectomies. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been shown to differ in conversions. We hypothesize that robotic approach will have decreased conversion to open and complications despite being a newer technique than laparoscopy.
ACS NSQIP study using the targeted Liver PUF from 2014 to 2020. Patients grouped based on hepatectomy type and approach. Multivariable and propensity scored matching (PSM) was used to analyze the groups.
Of 7767 patients who underwent hepatectomy, 6834 were laparoscopic and 933 were robotic. The rate of conversions was significantly lower in robotic vs laparoscopic (7.8% vs 14.7%; p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy was associated with decreased conversion for minor (6.2% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001), but not major, right, or left hepatectomy. Operative factors associated with conversion included Pringle (OR = 2.09 [95% CI 1.05–4.19]; p = 0.0369), and a laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.96 [95% CI 1.53–2.52]; p < 0.001). Undergoing conversion was associated with increases in bile leak (13.7% vs 4.9%; p < 0.001), readmission (11.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001), mortality (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), length of stay (5 days vs 3 days; p < 0.001), and surgical (30.5% vs 10.1%; p < 0.001), wound (4.9% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001) and medical (17.5% vs 6.7%; p < 0.001) complications.
Minimally invasive hepatectomy with conversion is associated with increased complications, and conversion is increased in the laparoscopic compared to a robotic approach.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to HPB
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing.Ann Surg. 2016; 263: 761-777https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001413
- Safety and efficacy for laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.Surg Oncol. 2018; 27: A26-A34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2017.06.007
- National trends with a laparoscopic liver resection: results from a population-based analysis.HPB. 2015; 17: 919-926https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12469
- A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.227
- Minimally invasive hepatectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and resource utilization in the elderly.Surg Endosc. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07298-5
- The southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: from indication to implementation.Ann Surg. 2018; 268: 11-18https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002524
- Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in morioka.Ann Surg. 2015; 261: 619-629https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001184
- Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: implications on training and adoption.J Surg Res. 2005; 125: 23-29https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2004.11.010
- Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery.Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2004; 18: 790-795https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-8922-2
- Selecting incision-dominant cases for robotic liver resection: towards outpatient hepatectomy with rapid recovery.Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2018; 7: 77-84https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2017.05.05
- International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018.World J Gastroenterol. 2019; 25: 1432-1444https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1432
- Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison.Ann Surg. 2014; 259: 549-555https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000250
- Predictors and implications of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive hepatectomy: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database.HPB. 2017; 19: 957-965https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.06.012
- Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: analysis of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness in a high-volume center.J Gastrointest Surg. 2019; 23: 2163-2173https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04112-4
- Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy.HPB. 2017; 19: 595-602https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.03.004
- Risk factors and consequences of conversion in laparoscopic major liver resection.Br J Surg. 2015; 102: 785-795https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9806
- Conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events results in significantly worst outcomes during laparoscopic liver resection: lessons learned from a multicenter review of 2861 cases.Ann Surg. 2017; 268: 1051-1057https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002332
- Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21: 8441-8451https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i27.8441
- Robotic vs laparoscopic hemihepatectomy: a comparative study from a single center.J Surg Oncol. 2019; 120: 646-653https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25640
- Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis.Asian J Surg. 2019; 42: 19-31https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.05.008
- A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection.J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014; 21: 745-753
Published online: February 02, 2023
Accepted: January 30, 2023
Received: August 7, 2022
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2023 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.