No abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. Background: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in existing literature. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5,446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumour features and perioperative characteristics were collected and analysed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. Results: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%) and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate (10 of 449 [2.2%] vs. 54 of 898 [6.0%]; P=0.002), less blood loss (100 mL [IQR; 50-200] days vs. 150 mL [IQR; 50-350]; P<0.001) and a shorter operative time (188 min [IQR; 140-270] vs. 222 min [IQR; 158-300]; P<0.001). These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis - lower open conversion rate (1 of 136 [0.7%] vs. 17 of 272 [6.2%]; P=0.009), less blood loss (100 mL [IQR; 48-200] vs. 160 mL [IQR; 50-400]; P<0.001) and shorter operative time (190 min [IQR; 141-258] vs. 230 min [IQR; 160-312]; P=0.003). Post-operative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. Conclusion: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss and open conversion rate when compared to LLLR.

Introduction The selection of the most informative quality of care indicator for laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) is still debated; among those proposed, textbook outcome (TO) seems to provide a compositive measure of the outcomes of surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors related with the TO in a cohort of patients who underwent LLS. Methods Patients who underwent LLS from 2014 to 2021 were included. TO for LLS (TOLLS) was defined as: R0 resection, absence of intraoperative incidents, severe complications, reintervention, 30-day readmission and in-hospital mortality. When also considering no prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS), the outcome was called TOLLS+. Results Four hundred twenty-one patients were included; TOLLS was achieved in 80.5%, TOLLS+ in 60.8% cases. R0 resection was obtained in 90.2% cases, intraoperative incidents occurred in 7.8%, severe complications in 5.0%, reintervention in 0.7%, readmission in 1.4% and in-hospital mortality in 0.2%. 32.5% of patients showed prolonged LOS. After univariate and multivariate analysis, factors influencing TOLLS were age (OR 0.967; p=0.003), concomitant surgery (OR 0.380; p=0.003), operative time (OR 0.996; p=0.008) and blood loss (OR 0.241; p<0.001); factors influencing TOLLS+ were ASA-score (OR 0.533; p=0.008), tumour histology (OR 0.421; p=0.021), concomitant surgery (OR 0.293; p<0.001), operative time (OR 0.997; p=0.016) and blood loss (OR 0.361; p=0.003). Conclusions TOLLS can be achieved in most patients undergoing LLR, and it seems to be influenced mostly by surgery-related factors; conversely, TOLLS+ is achieved less frequently and seems to be influenced also by patient- and tumour-related factors.

No abstract