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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |