Der Einfluß des Hypophysenextraktes auf die Peristaltik

B. Zondek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01755083

1920-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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.
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah,James Bundred,Derek Manas,Long Jiao,Mohammad Abu Hilal,S. A. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496920925637

2020-08-07

Scandinavian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Result: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

surgery
Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

Lilong Zhang,Qihang Yuan,Yao Xu,Weixing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240593

IF: 3.7

2020-10-13

PLoS ONE

Abstract:As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74–54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51–3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42–0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21–1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59–59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02–1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.72; P < 0.001) (<a href="#pone-0240593-t003">Table 3</a>); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78–-93.08; P < 0.001).Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

multidisciplinary sciences
The Safety and Efficacy of Approaches to Liver Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Nicole R. Jackson,Adam Hauch,Tian Hu,Joseph F. Buell,Douglas P. Slakey,Emad Kandil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2014.00186

2015-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.DATABASE: Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3-200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.57).CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.
Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Roberto Montalti,Giammauro Berardi,Alberto Patriti,Marco Vivarelli,Roberto Ivan Troisi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i27.8441

IF: 5.374

2015-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates.RESULTS: A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay.CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

Mike Fruscione,Ryan Pickens,Erin H. Baker,Allyson Cochran,Adeel Khan,Lee Ocuin,David A. Iannitti,Dionisios Vrochides,John B. Martinie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2018.11.011

IF: 3.842

2019-07-01

HPB

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Debate exists regarding outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. We reviewed and analyzed major hepatectomies (resection of ≥3 Couinaud liver segments) performed in a minimally invasive fashion at a single institution.METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, 473 major hepatectomy procedures were performed, of which 173 (37%) were performed in a minimally invasive fashion (57 robot-assisted and 116 laparoscopic). Patient demographics, operating statistics and outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.RESULTS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy were older (58.1 vs 53.2 years, respectively; p = 0.030), admitted to ICU postoperatively less frequently (43.9% vs 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.043), and readmitted less often within 90 days (7.0% vs 28.5%, respectively; p = 0.001). No significant differences were identified in relation to complications, blood loss, operative times, and length of stay.CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted is an effective alternative to laparoscopic major hepatectomy for resection of malignant and benign liver lesions. Robotic-assisted offers technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery including improved optic visualization, operative dexterity, and ease of dissection and suturing. This experience suggested that the robotic platform was associated with improved outcomes including reduced postoperative ICU admission and 90-day readmission.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Robotic Liver Resection: Recent Developments

Emin Kose,Salih Nafiz Karahan,Eren Berber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-020-00254-6

2020-04-30

Current Surgery Reports

Abstract:Purpose of ReviewThe popularity of robotic liver surgery has vastly increased in the last decade with the aim to overcome the disadvantages of laparoscopic liver surgery using inherent advantages of robotic technology including improved dexterity, enhanced range of motion and better vision. The purpose of this review is to assess the current literature on robotic liver resection and present its perioperative outcomes, oncologic outcomes, learning curve, cost effectiveness and limitations.Recent FindingsSeveral articles have been published on different aspects of robotic liver resection in the recent years. High cost associated with robotic equipment is a major drawback, however, decreased perioperative morbidity and lower costs reported in recent articles hints a trend towards acceptable cost.SummaryIn terms of perioperative outcomes, robotic liver resection was reported to be superior to open liver resection and comparable to laparoscopic liver resection. Regarding oncologic outcomes, robotic liver resection was found to be equal compared to open and laparoscopic resection.
Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Ye Xin Koh,Yun Zhao,Ivan En-Howe Tan,Hwee Leong Tan,Darren Weiquan Chua,Wei-Liang Loh,Ek Khoon Tan,Jin Yao Teo,Marianne Kit Har Au,Brian Kim Poh Goh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.04.015

IF: 4.348

2024-05-24

Surgery

Abstract:Background This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. Methods A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. Results Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference −2,529.84, 95% credible intervals −4,192.69 to −884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference −3,363.37, 95% credible intervals −5,629.24 to −1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. Conclusion Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

surgery
What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Emre Bozkurt,Jasper P. Sijberden,Mohammed Abu Hilal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174268

2022-09-01

Cancers

Abstract:In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

oncology
A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Maher Hendi,Bin Zhang,Yu Pan,Yiping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9334.1002

2018-01-01

Abstract:Background: Laparoscopic and Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for pancreatic surgery.The aim of this study is to evaluate compile and evaluate existing literature on the comparison of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and robotic pancreatic surgery in the resection of Pancreatic neoplasms.The outcomes of each technique were quantified using meta-analysis.Study Design: A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed.Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and mobidity and mortality and pancreatic fistula.Mean net differences and effect of each group.Results: 232 were full-text articles were identified, and 47 met the inclusion criteria, representing 2753 patients: 690 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery procedures and 2063 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery procedure.Operative time for the robotic approach was 20-45 minutes longer.The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (57 ml), and patients were 1.85 times more likely to be converted procedure and average length of stay in hospital (14,395 vs 11.85) laparoscopic group was longer then robotic.But there was no real difference between the 2 groups in terms of number of day.There was no much real difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, or morbidity rate. Conclusions:The laparoscopic and robotic approach to pancreatic surgery is as safe and similar outcomes for both procedures.Further the robotic approach tended to have longer operating times, less blood loss, and a higher rate of conversion to an open procedure compared with laparoscopic procedure.On the basis of the findings of this meta-analysis, there does not appear to be any clear advantage of a robotic approach over a laparoscopic one for pancreatic surgery.
Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures

Roland S. Croner,Aristotiles Perrakis,Werner Hohenberger,Maximillian Brunner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1440-1

2016-05-20

Abstract:BackgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery is increasing worldwide. The benefit of the robot in this scenario is currently controversially discussed. We compared our robotic cases vs. laparoscopic and open minor hepatic resections and share the experience.Material and methodsFrom 2011 to 2015, ten patients underwent robotic and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic minor liver resections in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen. These patients were compared to a case-matched control group of 53 patients. The perioperative prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsBlood loss was significantly decreased in the robotic (306 ml) and laparoscopic (356 ml) vs. the open (903 ml) surgery group (p = 0.001). Mean tumor size was 4.1–4.8 cm in all groups (p = 0.571). Negative surgical margins were present in 94 % of the open and 100 % of the laparoscopic and robotic group (p = 0.882). Time for surgery was enlarged for robotic (321 min) vs. laparoscopic (242 min) and open (186 min) surgery (p = 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was decreased after robotic (7 days) and laparoscopic (8 days) vs. open (10 days) surgery (p = 0.004). Total morbidity was 17 % for open, 16 % for laparoscopic, and 1 % for robotic cases (p = 0.345). Postoperative pain medication and elevation of liver enzymes were remarkably lower after minimally invasive vs. open procedures.ConclusionMinimally invasive liver surgery can be performed safely for minor hepatic resections and should be considered whenever possible. Minor liver resections can be performed by standard laparoscopy equivalent to robotic procedures. Nevertheless, the robot adds a technical upgrade which may have benefits for challenging cases and major liver surgery.

surgery
Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

Ali Ahmad,Hadley D Freeman,Sarah D Corn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09809-3

Abstract:Background: Robotic hepatectomy has gained increasing acceptance across the US. Although the robotic approach offers significant technical advantages, it is still bound by the individual surgeon's learning curve. Proficiency in this approach should theoretically lead to improved peri-operative outcomes. Methods: Between 2017 and 2020, data on 148 consecutive robotic hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively analyzed. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, intraoperative blood loss (EBL) and operative time were used to assess learning curves for robotic major (n = 58) and minor (n = 90) hepatectomy patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared in regards with proficiency. Results: Proficiency for robotic major and minor hepatectomy was achieved after 22 cases and 34 cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumor characteristics. For robotic major hepatectomy, when compared to early experience, proficiency was associated with a significant improvement in mean EBL (242 mL vs 118 mL, p = 0.0004), operative time (330 min vs 247 min, p = 0.0002), decreased overall complication rate (23% vs 3%, p = 0.039), and length of hospital stay (5.7 days vs 4.1 days, p = 0.004). No difference in conversion rate, mortality or 30 day readmission was seen. For robotic minor hepatectomy, proficiency was associated with significantly decreased mean EBL (115 mL vs 54 mL, p = 0.005), operative time (168 vs 125 min, p = 0.014), and length of hospital stay (2.8 days vs 2.1 days, p = 0.021). No difference was observed in conversion rate, overall complications, mortality or 30 day readmission. Conclusion: In the modern era, robotic hepatectomy offers a safe approach with excellent perioperative outcomes. Post learning curve proficiency is associated with significant improvements in perioperative outcomes in both major and minor hepatectomy. Results from our study can serve as a guide to surgeons and programs looking to adopt this technique.
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ji-Ming Wang,Jiang-Fa Li,Guan-Dou Yuan,Song-Qing He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025648

2021-04-30

Abstract:Background: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed. Conclusions: Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.
Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

Ruoyu Guan,Yongjun Chen,Kui Yang,Di Ma,Xiaoyong Gong,Baiyong Shen,Chenghong Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.05.008

IF: 2.808

2019-01-01

Asian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P<0.00001=more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P<0.00001=. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery.

surgery
Comparison of surgical outcomes of intracorporeal hepaticojejunostomy in the excision of choledochal cysts using laparoscopic versus robot techniques

Hongeun Lee,Wooil Kwon,Youngmin Han,Jae Ri Kim,Sun-Whe Kim,Jin-Young Jang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2018.94.4.190

2018-01-01

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research

Abstract:PURPOSE: Increasing surgical expertise in minimally invasive surgery has allowed laparoscopic surgery to be performed in many abdominal surgeries. Laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy are challenging and sophisticated surgeries because of the difficult anastomosis. Recent advances in robotic surgery have enabled more delicate and precise movements, and Endowrist instruments allow for securing sutures during anastomosis. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic hepaticojejunostomy in choledochal cyst excision.METHODS: Sixty-seven patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic-hybrid choledochal cyst excision from 2004 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed and compared. In robotic surgery, dissection was performed laparoscopically, and hepaticojejunostomy was performed using a robotic platform.RESULTS: The mean operative time was significantly longer in robotic surgery than in laparoscopic surgery (247.94 ± 54.14 minutes vs. 181.31 ± 43.06 minutes, P < 0.05). The mean estimated blood loss (108.71 ± 15.53 mL vs. 172.78 ± 117.46 mL, respectively, P = 0.097) and postoperative hospital stay (7.33 ± 2.96 days vs. 6.22 ± 1.06 days, P = 0.128) were comparable between procedures. Compared to the laparoscopic approaches, robotic surgery had significantly less short-term complications (22.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.029). There were more biliary leakage (n = 7, 14.3%) observed during the first 30 days after surgery in laparoscopy while none were observed in the robotic method.CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery allow for more precise and secure sutures during anastomosis thereby reducing biliary complications. With expanding knowledge and expertise, robotic surgery may offer more advantages over laparoscopy in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

surgery
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
Robotic vs. laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Elena Panettieri,Ariana M. Chirban,Bryar Hansen,Eduardo A. Vega,Claudius Conrad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2022.112

2023-04-16

Mini-invasive Surgery

Abstract:Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has become increasingly popular over the last two decades, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) representing a common indication. While data has shown the benefits of a laparoscopic vs. an open approach, robotic liver surgery is rapidly emerging. In this context, among the two minimal access approaches [robotic (RLR) vs. laparoscopic liver resection (LLR)], a differential benefit is still under investigation. While the advantages of RLR include increased dexterity, reduction of physiological tremors, and wrist articulation, it currently has no haptic feedback or specialized liver parenchymal transection devices and is associated with increased operative time and cost. However, RLR has proved to be a safe and effective approach for select patients with HCC. Some benefits of RLR include similar oncological outcomes to open or laparoscopic surgery, possibly reduced conversion rates, and an easier transition from open surgery to a minimally invasive approach. Moreover, while already today RLR can facilitate resection for HCC in hard-to-reach anatomic locations (e.g., transthoracic approach to posterior-superior liver), the future of robotics with the development of advanced image processing technologies, haptic feedback, liver-specific devices, lower cost, and more robot choices seems even more promising.
Minimally Invasive Liver Resection: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy

Vignesh Packiam,David L. Bartlett,Samer Tohme,Srinevas Reddy,J. Wallis Marsh,David A. Geller,Allan Tsung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-2040-1

2012-10-05

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS).MethodsA retrospective analysis was made comparing robotic (n = 11) and laparoscopic (n = 18) LLS performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between January 2009 and July 2011. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were collected.ResultsDemographic and tumor characteristics of robotic and laparoscopic LLS were similar. There were also no significant differences in operative outcomes including estimated blood loss and operating room time. Patients undergoing robotic LLS had more admissions to the ICU (46 versus 6 %), increased rate of minor complications (27 versus 0 %), and longer lengths of stay (4 versus 3 days). There were no significant differences in major complication rates or 90-day mortality. The cost of robotic and laparoscopic LLS was not significantly different when only considering direct costs ($5,130 versus $4,408, p = 0.401). However, robotic LLS costs were significantly greater when including indirect costs, which were estimated to be $1,423 per robotic case ($6,553 versus $4,408, p = 0.021).DiscussionRobotic LLS yields slightly inferior clinical outcomes and increased cost compared to the laparoscopic approach.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery

Der Einfluß des Hypophysenextraktes auf die Peristaltik

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

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

The Safety and Efficacy of Approaches to Liver Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

Robotic Liver Resection: Recent Developments

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures

Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

Comparison of surgical outcomes of intracorporeal hepaticojejunostomy in the excision of choledochal cysts using laparoscopic versus robot techniques

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

Robotic vs. laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection: Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy