Cargando…
Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas. METHODS: From April 2011 to April 2017, consecutive patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas were included in this study. According to the type of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204244/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32375738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00760-5 |
_version_ | 1783530025519153152 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Minggen Chen, Kuang Zhang, Xuan Li, Chenggang Song, Dongda Liu, Rong |
author_facet | Hu, Minggen Chen, Kuang Zhang, Xuan Li, Chenggang Song, Dongda Liu, Rong |
author_sort | Hu, Minggen |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas. METHODS: From April 2011 to April 2017, consecutive patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas were included in this study. According to the type of operation, these patients were divided into the robotic hemihepatectomy (RH) group, the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) group, and the open hemihepatectomy (OH) group. The perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared among the three groups. The study was reported following the STROCSS criteria. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumour location, body surface area (BSA), future liver remnant volume (FLR), standard liver volume (SLV), liver haemangioma volume, FLR/SLV, resected normal liver volume/resected volume, hepatic disease, rates of blood transfusion, liver function after 24 h of surgery, operative morbidity and mortality among the three groups. Compared with patients in the RH group (n = 19) and the LH group (n = 13), patients in the OH group (n = 25) had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05), time to oral intake (P < 0.05), and time to get-out-of-bed (P < 0.05); a higher VAS score after 24 h of surgery (P < 0.05); and a shorter operative time (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in these postoperative outcomes (P>0.05) between the RH group and the LH group. When the setup time in the RH group was excluded, the operative time in the RH group was significantly shorter than that in the LH group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the operative time between the RH group and the OH group (P>0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in the RH group was the lowest among the three groups (P<0.05), and the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the LH group was less than that in the OH group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were associated with less intraoperative blood loss,better postoperative recovery and lower pain score. Compared with laparoscopic hemihepatectomy, robotic hemihepatectomy was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter operative time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7204244 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72042442020-05-12 Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter Hu, Minggen Chen, Kuang Zhang, Xuan Li, Chenggang Song, Dongda Liu, Rong BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas. METHODS: From April 2011 to April 2017, consecutive patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas were included in this study. According to the type of operation, these patients were divided into the robotic hemihepatectomy (RH) group, the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) group, and the open hemihepatectomy (OH) group. The perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared among the three groups. The study was reported following the STROCSS criteria. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumour location, body surface area (BSA), future liver remnant volume (FLR), standard liver volume (SLV), liver haemangioma volume, FLR/SLV, resected normal liver volume/resected volume, hepatic disease, rates of blood transfusion, liver function after 24 h of surgery, operative morbidity and mortality among the three groups. Compared with patients in the RH group (n = 19) and the LH group (n = 13), patients in the OH group (n = 25) had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05), time to oral intake (P < 0.05), and time to get-out-of-bed (P < 0.05); a higher VAS score after 24 h of surgery (P < 0.05); and a shorter operative time (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in these postoperative outcomes (P>0.05) between the RH group and the LH group. When the setup time in the RH group was excluded, the operative time in the RH group was significantly shorter than that in the LH group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the operative time between the RH group and the OH group (P>0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in the RH group was the lowest among the three groups (P<0.05), and the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the LH group was less than that in the OH group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were associated with less intraoperative blood loss,better postoperative recovery and lower pain score. Compared with laparoscopic hemihepatectomy, robotic hemihepatectomy was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter operative time. BioMed Central 2020-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7204244/ /pubmed/32375738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00760-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hu, Minggen Chen, Kuang Zhang, Xuan Li, Chenggang Song, Dongda Liu, Rong Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title | Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title_full | Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title_fullStr | Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title_full_unstemmed | Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title_short | Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
title_sort | robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204244/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32375738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00760-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huminggen roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter AT chenkuang roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter AT zhangxuan roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter AT lichenggang roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter AT songdongda roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter AT liurong roboticlaparoscopicoropenhemihepatectomyforgiantliverhaemangiomasover10cmindiameter |