Cargando…

Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lorenz, E., Arend, J., Franz, M., Rahimli, M., Perrakis, A., Negrini, V., Gumbs, A. A., Croner, R. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02152-6
_version_ 1783689813535227904
author Lorenz, E.
Arend, J.
Franz, M.
Rahimli, M.
Perrakis, A.
Negrini, V.
Gumbs, A. A.
Croner, R. S.
author_facet Lorenz, E.
Arend, J.
Franz, M.
Rahimli, M.
Perrakis, A.
Negrini, V.
Gumbs, A. A.
Croner, R. S.
author_sort Lorenz, E.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. METHODS: The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8106606
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81066062021-05-24 Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center Lorenz, E. Arend, J. Franz, M. Rahimli, M. Perrakis, A. Negrini, V. Gumbs, A. A. Croner, R. S. Langenbecks Arch Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. METHODS: The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-04-08 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8106606/ /pubmed/33834295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02152-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Lorenz, E.
Arend, J.
Franz, M.
Rahimli, M.
Perrakis, A.
Negrini, V.
Gumbs, A. A.
Croner, R. S.
Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title_full Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title_fullStr Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title_full_unstemmed Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title_short Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center
title_sort robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume german academic center
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33834295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02152-6
work_keys_str_mv AT lorenze roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT arendj roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT franzm roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT rahimlim roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT perrakisa roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT negriniv roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT gumbsaa roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter
AT cronerrs roboticandlaparoscopicliverresectioncomparativeexperiencesatahighvolumegermanacademiccenter