[Elimination of multiple drug resistance in Escherichia coli culture by aurantin and UV rays].

N. S. Brodinova,A. Moroz,L. Glatman

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Laparoscopy-Assisted Versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bin Zhang,Yu Pan,Ke Chen,Hendi Maher,Mingyu Chen,Hepan Zhu,Yibin Zhu,Yi Dai,Jiang Chen,Xiujun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2956749

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective . To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation. Background . LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH. Methods . A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017. Results . Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: −3.01~52.78, P=0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −59.92 ml; 95% CI: −94.58~−25.27, P=0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = −0.47 d; 95% CI: −1.78~0.83, P=0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P=0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = −0.22; 95% CI: −0.44~−0.11, P=0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P=0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: −23.45~38.07, P=0.64). Conclusion . Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.
Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery.

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Yi-Fan Wang,Xue-Yong Zheng,Xiao Liang,Hong Yu,Xiu-Jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0480

2019-01-01

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques

Abstract:BACKGROUND The application of laparoscopic hepatectomy is gaining momentum. However, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are yet to be adequately evaluated. We aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH for HCC by comparing it with open right hepatectomy (ORH). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data of patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC from May 2007 to January 2018 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors, including age, sex, preoperative therapy, tumor size, and pattern. RESULTS The original cohort included 109 patients (LRH, 41 patients; ORH, 68 patients). Of the 41 patients who underwent LRH, 8 patients (19.5%) required conversion to laparotomy. The overall morbidity was 19.5%, and no mortality in LRH was noted. After PSM, LRH was associated with a tendency of prolonged operative time (255.5 ± 93.4 minutes versus 225.9 ± 39.8 minutes, P = .08) and less intraoperative blood loss [300 (100-1200) versus 500 (200-2000) mL, P < .01]. LRH showed up a trend of less overall morbidity without statistical significance (18.4% versus 26.3%, P = .41). Moreover, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups during a median follow-up of 19 (3-58) months for the LRH group and 23 (3-97) months for the ORH group. CONCLUSIONS LRH can be performed as safe and effective as ORH for HCC in regard to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LRH holds the benefit in less intraoperative blood loss and appears to achieve less postoperative morbidity, which could serve as a promising alternative to ORH in selected individuals.
Perioperative Outcomes Comparing Laparoscopic with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Post-Hepatectomy Recurrent Liver Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yuelong Liang,Chengping Lin,Bin Zhang,Jiasheng Cao,Mingyu Chen,Jieliang Shen,Feng Xu,Guang-Yuan Xiao,Ping Long,Ke Chen,Hendi Maher,Xiujun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.052

2020-01-01

International Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.
Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve

Boram Lee,YoungRok Choi,Ho‐Seong Han,Yoo‐Seok Yoon,Jai Young Cho,Sungho Kim,Kil Hwan Kim,In Gun Hyun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13683

2019-08-27

Clinical Transplantation

Abstract:To compare the early outcomes after learning curve of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) to those of open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). Our analysis was based on 78 consecutive cases of living liver donor, who underwent right hepatectomy, of which 43 underwent ODRH and 35 PLDRH. The learning curve for each group was analyzed. Donor characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Two donors in the PLDRH required conversion to an open due to bleeding and large graft size (Open conversion rate : 6.06%). The following outcomes during the study period were comparable between the two groups: operative time (P =0.64); estimated blood loss (EBL; P=0.86); intra‐operative transfusion (P =0.57); hospital stay (P=0.41), and postoperative complications (P =0.51). The operative time stabilized for the ODRH group after 17 cases and for the PLDRH group after 15 cases. After the learning curve, the EBL was lower for PLDRH than ODRH (P=0.04). PLDRH can be performed as safely as ODRH and with a lower volume of EBL once the surgeon has attained an appropriate level of learning.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

surgery,transplantation
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

Marcus Yeow,Shauna Soh,Graham Starkey,Marcos V Perini,Ye-Xin Koh,Ek-Khoon Tan,Chung-Yip Chan,Prema Raj,Brian K P Goh,Tousif Kabir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.03.042

IF: 4.348

Surgery

Abstract:Background: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy. Results: Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34). Conclusion: Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.
Comparison of the learning curves for robotic left and right hemihepatectomy: A prospective cohort study

Qu Liu,Tao Zhang,Minggen Hu,Zhiming Zhao,Guodong Zhao,Chenggang Li,Xuan Zhang,Wan Yee Lau,Rong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.022

2020-09-01

International Journal of Surgery

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>Robotic hepatectomy has been continuously improving and shown to be safe and reliable. The learning curve of robotic hemihepatectomy is required which enable beginners to benefit from previous experience. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve of robotic left (RLH) and right hemihepatectomy (RRH) in terms of operative time (OT) to determine which procedure has an easier learning curve for beginners.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>Data records for each 100 consecutive patients who underwent RLH and RRH between July 2012 and May 2019 were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. The data included demographics, OT, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and rates of morbidity and mortality. The cumulative sum method was used to evaluate the learning curve of OT.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>All patients underwent the RRH and RLH procedure performed by the same surgical team. RRH and RLH learning curve consisted of two phases: the first and second phase. The first phase of RRH included 45 patients, while RLH outcomes were optimized after 35 cases were completed. Compared with the first phase, the mean OT and the median blood loss were decreased significantly in the second phase in both learning curves. No significant decrease in the rates of morbidity and conversion to laparotomy or PHS was observed.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of RLH and RRH. The surgeons who previously lacked robotic experience are able to overcome the learning curve for RLH faster than RRH.</p>

surgery
Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Dieter C. Broering,Yasser Elsheikh,Yasir Alnemary,Ahmed Zidan,Ahmed Elsarawy,Yahia Saleh,Saleh Alabbad,Mark Sturdevant,Yao‐Ming Wu,Roberto I. Troisi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.25820

2020-10-07

Liver Transplantation

Abstract:<p>Robotic right lobe donor hepatectomy (RRLDH) is rarely performed, and data concerning its safety and efficacy are lacking. Here we compare our series of RRLDHs with a similar cohort undergoing open right lobe donor hepatectomy (ORLDH) with a propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis. Among 263 consecutive adult patients undergoing right lobe living donor hepatectomy from January 2015 until July 2019, 35 RRLDHs were matched to 70 ORLDHs. A 1:2 PSM analysis was performed to make the groups comparable for donor gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) and recipient gender, age, BMI, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and indication for transplant. Operative time was longer in RRLDHs compared to ORLDHs (504 ± 73.5 vs. 331 ± 65.1 minutes; <i>P </i> < 0.001) but significantly decreased with the number of cases (<i>P </i> < 0.001). No conversions occurred. The warm ischemia time was longer and blood loss significantly less in RRLDHs (<i>P </i> = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Overall donor complications were similar: 2 (5.7%) in RRLDHs versus 12 (17.1%) in ORLDHs (<i>P </i> = 0.13). Biliary leak occurred in 1 (3%) robotic case and 2 (3%) cases with the conventional approach. Donors undergoing robotic surgery required less patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA) and had a shorter hospital stay compared to the open surgery group (<i>P </i> = 0.001 and <i>P </i> < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in graft anatomical data and recipient outcomes were recorded. <i>Conclusion: </i> RRLDH is feasible, safe, and reproducible, with significantly decreased blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared to the open procedure. The first 35 robotic cases showed a substantial reduction in operative time, reflecting a rapid shortening of the learning curve.</p>

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery,transplantation
Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver

Jae Keun Kim,Joon Seong Park,Dai Hoon Han,Gi Hong Choi,Kyung Sik Kim,Jin Sub Choi,Dong Sup Yoon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4803-3

2016-02-22

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundA few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9).ResultsThere were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009).ConclusionsRobotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.
Effects of Continuous High-Volume Hemofiltration on Experimental Severe Acute Pancreatitis in Pigs

Wei-qin Li,Xiao-wen Yan,Hao Wang,Zhen-huan Zhang,Wenkui Yu,D. Ji,D. Gong,Z. Quan,Jie‐shou Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mpa.0000240605.03441.1f

2007-01-01

Pancreas

Abstract:Objective: To compare the effects of different doses of hemofiltration on severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) in pigs. Methods: The animal model of SAP was produced by intraductal injection of sodium taurocholate and trypsin. Animals in group 1 served as SAP control. Animals in group 2 received (20 mL/kg per hour) continuous low-volume hemofiltration (LVHF), and animals in group 3 received (100 mL/kg per hour) continuous high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) immediately after the induction of SAP. After the instrumentation of the animals by arterial and Swan-Ganz catheters, hemodynamic indexes were monitored intermittently at different times. The rectal temperature and the concentration of amylase and cytokines in serum were measured at the same time. Results: The survival time of HVHF group was significantly prolonged (P < 0.01). The initial elevation of body temperature and the hypothermia in the late course of experiments were significantly ameliorated by HVHF (P < 0.01). Six hours after the induction of pancreatitis, the urine output of animals in HVHF group was obviously higher than that in control group (P < 0.05), which stayed behind 36 hours later (P < 0.05). The major hemodynamic finding was that pancreatitis-induced hypotension was significantly attenuated by HVHF (P < 0.01). The development of hyperdynamic circulatory failure was simultaneously attenuated, as reflected by a limited increase in CI, an attenuated decrease in systemic vascular resistance index. Plasma amylases in the HVHF group were significantly lower than those in control and LVHF groups (P < 0.01). The serum concentrations of cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor &agr; (TNF-&agr;), interleukin (IL) 6, and IL-10 all decreased significantly in treatment groups (P < 0.01), and those of HVHF group were less significant than the HVHF group (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The HVHF was associated with a better hemodynamic profile, a less hyperkinetic state, and more prolonged survival than that of LVHF, which may result from the HVHF that can remove the inflammatory cytokines more efficiently.
Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy

Jian-Peng Cai,Wei Chen,Liu-Hua Chen,Xi-Yu Wan,Jia-Ming Lai,Xiao-Yu Yin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.05.017

Abstract:Objective: To compare the safety and short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies in a single academic medical center. Methods: A cohort of 52 patients, who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies between April 2015 and January 2020 in Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University was recruited into the study. Their clinicopathological features and short-term outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Results: There were 25 robotic-assisted and 27 laparoscopic cases, with a median age of 55 years (34-77 years). There was one conversion to open in laparoscopic group. There were no significant differences in clinicopathological features between two groups, except robotic group had higher body mass index (23.9 vs. 22.0 kg/m2, p = 0.047). Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups had similar operative time (300 vs. 310 min, p = 0.515), length of hospital stay (8 vs. 8 days, p = 0.981) and complication rates (4.0% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.395), but the former had less blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001) and lower incidence of blood transfusion (0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.023) in comparison with laparoscopic group. R0 resection was achieved for all patients with malignancies. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The cost of robotic group was higher than laparoscopic group (105,870 vs. 64,191 RMB yuan, p = 0.02). Conclusion: The robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches had similar safety and short-term outcomes in left hemi-hepatectomy, and the former can reduce operative blood loss and blood transfusion. However, the costs were higher in robotic group.
Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy

Charing C Chong,David Fuks,Kit-Fai Lee,Joseph J Zhao,Gi Hong Choi,Iswanto Sucandy,Adrian K H Chiow,Marco V Marino,Mikel Gastaca,Xiaoying Wang,Jae Hoon Lee,Mikhail Efanov,T Peter Kingham,Mathieu D'Hondt,Roberto I Troisi,Sung-Hoon Choi,Robert P Sutcliffe,Chung-Yip Chan,Eric C H Lai,James O Park,Fabrizio Di Benedetto,Fernando Rotellar,Atsushi Sugioka,Fabricio Ferreira Coelho,Alessandro Ferrero,Tran Cong Duy Long,Chetana Lim,Olivier Scatton,Qu Liu,Moritz Schmelzle,Johann Pratschke,Tan-To Cheung,Rong Liu,Ho-Seong Han,Chung Ngai Tang,Brian K P Goh,International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection study group investigators,Mizelle D'Silva,Henri Schotte,Celine De Meyere,Felix Krenzien,Prashant Kadam,Roberto Montalti,Mariano Giglio,Diana Salimgereeva,Ruslan Alikhanov,Lip Seng Lee,Mikel Prieto,Jae Young Jang,Paulo Magistri,Kevin P Labadie,Phan Phuoc Nghia,Masayuki Kojima,Yutaro Kato,Paulo Herman,Jaime A P Kruger,Nicholas Syn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0161

2022-05-01

Abstract:Importance: Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Design, setting, and participants: In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. Interventions: Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. Main outcomes and measures: Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46). Conclusion and relevance: Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

Thomas Winckelmans,Dennis A Wicherts,Isabelle Parmentier,Celine De Meyere,Chris Verslype,Mathieu D'Hondt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07060-y

Abstract:Background: Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). Methods: All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes. Results: In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001). Conclusions: RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Posterosuperior Region: a Retrospective Study of Consecutive Cases

Wei Chen,Xiaoyu Zhang,Jincai Jiang,Yufu Ye,Zhenglong Zhai,Wendi Hu,Xiang Li,Yiwen Chen,Yan Chen,Yifan Hong,Lan Jia,Xueli Bai,Tingbo Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09952-5

2023-01-01

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundMinimally invasive liver resection of the posterosuperior region is considered a challenging procedure due to poor exposure and difficult bleeding control. A robotic approach is supposed to be advantageous in posterosuperior segmentectomy. Its benefits over laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remain undetermined. This study compared robotic liver resection (RLR) and LLR in the posterosuperior region performed by a single surgeon.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive RLR and LLR performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and March 2022. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed between both groups.ResultsThe analysis included 48 RLR and 57 LLR procedures in the posterosuperior region. After PSM analysis, 41 cases of both groups were retained. In pre-PSM cohort, the operative time in the RLR group was significantly shorter than in the LLR group (160 vs. 208 min, P = 0.001), especially in radical resection of malignant tumors (176 vs. 231 min, P = 0.004). The total Pringle maneuver duration was also markedly shorter (40 vs. 51 min, P = 0.047), and the estimated blood loss in the RLR group was lower (92 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.005). The postoperative hospital stay (POHS) in the RLR group was significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 7.5 days, P = 0.048). In PSM cohort, operative time in the RLR group was also significantly shorter (163 vs. 193 min, P = 0.036), and the estimated blood loss was lower (92 vs. 144 mL, P = 0.024). However, the total Pringle maneuver duration and POHS showed no significant difference. The complications were similar between two groups in both pre-PSM and PSM cohorts.ConclusionRLR in the posterosuperior region was as safe and feasible as LLR. RLR was associated with reduced operative time and blood loss than LLR.
Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center

Young-Dong Yu,Ki-Hun Kim,Dong-Hwan Jung,Jung-Man Namkoong,Sam-Youl Yoon,Sung-Won Jung,Sang-Kyung Lee,Sung-Gyu Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-014-1238-y

2014-11-04

Abstract:PurposeThe significant advantages of robotic surgery have expanded the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed through minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver surgeries at a single center.MethodsFrom July 2007 to October 2011, a total of 206 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic liver surgery at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. We compared the surgical outcomes between robotic liver surgery and laparoscopic liver surgery during the same period. Only patients who underwent left hemihepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy were included in this study.ResultsThe robotic group consisted of 13 patients who underwent robotic liver resection including 10 left lateral sectionectomies and three left hemihepatectomies. The laparoscopic group consisted of 17 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection during the same period including six left lateral sectionectomies and 11 left hemihepatectomies. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, tumor type, and tumor size. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcome such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative liver function tests, complication rate, and hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, the medical cost was higher in the robotic group.ConclusionsRobotic liver resection is a safe and feasible option for liver resection in experienced hands. The authors suggest that since the robotic surgical system provides sophisticated advantages, the retrenchment of medical cost for the robotic system in addition to refining its liver transection tool may substantially increase its application in clinical practice in the near future.

surgery
Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Peng Zhu,Wei Liao,Ze-yang Ding,Lin Chen,Wan-guang Zhang,Bi-xiang Zhang,Xiao-ping Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3689-x

2018-11-07

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the learning curve effect on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR).MethodsIn 140 consecutive cases, all data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion.ResultsAmong all 140 patients, no patients suffered from any organ dysfunction postoperatively and the operative mortality was 0%. The CUSUM analysis showed that at the 30th consecutive patient, the open conversion rate reached to the average value, and it further improved thereafter. In the last 70 patients, only 3 patients (4.3%) required conversion and 7 patients (10%) needed blood transfusion. Only 1 patient (1.3%) out of 79 patients with HCC had a positive resection margin. Univariate analyses showed the following risk factors associated with significantly higher risks of conversion (P < 0.05): tumor number > 1, lesions in segments 1/4a/7/8, right posterior sectionectomy, and lesions which were beyond the indications of the Louisville statement. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that both tumor number > 1 (OR: 2.10, P < 0.05) and right posterior sectionectomy (OR: 11.19, P < 0.01) were risk factors of conversion.ConclusionsThe robotic approach for hepatectomy is safe and feasible. A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after the 30th consecutive patient. The long-term oncological outcomes of robotic hepatectomy still need further investigation.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

Wei Zhang,Lin Xu,Jianwei Zhang,Xu Che

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.030

IF: 3.842

2021-03-01

HPB

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was a controversial topic due to its unknown safety and feasibility.METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LDRH with open living donor right hepatectomy (ODRH), which were published between the date of database establishment and June 2020. Revman5.3 was used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. For the donors, there was no significant difference in warm ischemic time, hospital stay, graft weight, hepatic arterial anomalies (HAA), hepatic vein anomalies (HVA), portal vein anomalies (PVA), biliary anomalies, bleeding, wound infection, severe complication rate and readmission rate. The estimated blood loss, incidence of complication, intra-abdominal fluid rate in the LDRH group were significantly lower than those in the ODRH group, while the operation time, time to remove liver in the LDRH group were significantly higher than those in the ODRH group. For the recipients, there was no significant difference in complication rate, bleeding, HAA, PVA, biliary anomalies, graft failure and mortality. The HVA rate in the LDRH group was significantly higher than that in the ODRH group.CONCLUSION: LDRH is safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared with ODRH and it can reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complication in donors, which requires further verification by more multi-center comparative studies with large sample and high quality.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Feasibility of total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy compared with open surgery: comprehensive review of 100 cases of the initial stage

Jinsoo Rhu,Gyu Seong Choi,Jong Man Kim,Jae‐Won Joh,Choon Hyuck David Kwon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.653

2019-07-24

Abstract:BackgroundThis study analyzed the feasibility of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy compared to open surgery. MethodsDonors who underwent living donor right from May 2013 to October 2017 were included. Comparisons between laparoscopy and open surgery were performed using Student's t‐test, Mann‐Whitney test, chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test, and linear‐by‐linear association. ResultsAmong 305 donors, 100 and 205 underwent laparoscopy and open surgery, respectively. The laparoscopy group had more type I (95.0%) bile ducts than the open group (59.5%, P<0.001) and had longer operation time (378.2 ± 93.5 minutes vs. 329.1 ± 68.0 minutes, P<0.001), while estimated blood loss was smaller (298.3 ± 162.9 mL vs. 344.3 ± 149.9 mL, P=0.015). Although Clavien‐Dindo grade IIIb complication was higher in the laparoscopy (n=4, 4.0%) compared to the open group (0.0%, P=0.011), it was only significant in the initial 25 cases (8.0%, P=0.011), and became comparable afterwards. Furthermore, grade IIIb complication was comparable when type I bile duct donors were selected (P=0.072). ConclusionsLaparoscopic living donor hepatectomy can cause significant complication in the initial stage. Therefore, careful donor selection and well‐established training program is required for introducing the laparoscopic donor program.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Robotic Minor hepatectomy offers a Favorable Learning Curve and May Result in Superior Perioperative Outcomes Compared with Laparoscopic Approach

Victoriav O'Connor,Brooke Vuong,Su-Tau Yang,Andrew Difronzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481708301014

2017-10-01

The American Surgeon

Abstract:Minorhepatectomy (MH) is a common type of robotic-assisted liver resection, but few studies compared it with laparoscopic. We compared the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent robotic (RH) or laparoscopic (LH) minor hepatectomy and evaluated the effect of surgeon's experience on outcomes. A prospective database was used to identify patients from 2009 through 2016 who underwent RH or LH. Two surgeons performed RH starting in 2014, whereas LH had been established before that. Of the 93 patients, 42 were in RH and 51 in LH group. The mean patient age, gender, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, proportion of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma were similar. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion to open, 30-day complication rate, Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were similar. There was no difference in average tumor size, specimen volume, or achievement of R0 margin. In RH group, after completing 15 cases, there were no conversions to open. After 25 cases, EBL, LOS, and 30-day complication rate were improved as compared with LH. Perioperative outcomes of robotic MH are equivalent to laparoscopic. After approximately 25 cases, robotic-assisted MH may result in superior outcomes compared with laparoscopic.

[Elimination of multiple drug resistance in Escherichia coli culture by aurantin and UV rays].

Laparoscopy-Assisted Versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery.

Perioperative Outcomes Comparing Laparoscopic with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Post-Hepatectomy Recurrent Liver Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of pure laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy after a learning curve

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

Comparison of the learning curves for robotic left and right hemihepatectomy: A prospective cohort study

Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver

Effects of Continuous High-Volume Hemofiltration on Experimental Severe Acute Pancreatitis in Pigs

Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Posterosuperior Region: a Retrospective Study of Consecutive Cases

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center

Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

Feasibility of total laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy compared with open surgery: comprehensive review of 100 cases of the initial stage

Robotic Minor hepatectomy offers a Favorable Learning Curve and May Result in Superior Perioperative Outcomes Compared with Laparoscopic Approach