Robotic versus open liver resections: A case‐matched comparison

Morel, Philippe; Jung, Minoa; Cornateanu, Sorina; Buehler, Leo Hans; Majno, Pietro; Toso, Christian; Buchs, Nicolas; Rubbia‐Brandt, Laura; Hagen, Monika

doi:10.1002/rcs.1800

Cited by 38 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In case of overlapping populations, the most recent or most informative studies were included in the systematic review (Supplemental Table S2). From the 803 records retrieved, 31 studies were finally deemed eligible, incorporating a total of 1148 patients. The majority of studies were from Europe (14/31), followed by Asia (10/31) and the USA (7/31).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though the robotic approach preserves the advantages of MIS over open surgery, it remains unclear whether these beneficial effects are also observed when compared with laparoscopy. Most of the available studies suggest no benefit in safety and feasibility of the robotic approach over laparoscopy; however, the results were obtained from single centers and may be biased due to the learning curve of the robotic system, since most studies reflected the initial experience of each individual center …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: A systematic review

Tsilimigras

Moris

Vagios

et al. 2018

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The robotic system has emerged as a new minimally invasive technology with promising results. We sought to systematically review the available literature on the safety and the oncologic outcomes of robotic liver surgery. A systematic review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library through November 12th, 2017. A robotic approach may be a safe and feasible surgical option for minor and major liver resections.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: A systematic review

Tsilimigras

Moris

Vagios

et al. 2018

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…colleagues compared 16 open and robotic resections and demonstrated that negative margin can be safely achieved with the robotic approach. 13 Chen and colleagues reported that disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for robotic procedures did not dif- In our experience, 16 the robotic approach allowed to resect slightly larger tumors compared with laparoscopy, with fewer postoperative complications and low-grade morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo (P < .01, P = .002, P = .03, respectively). No differences were found in the rates of R0 resections nor in the resection margin width.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Between 2016 and 2018, three matched analyses have been published comparing open and robotic liver resections . Morel and colleagues compared 16 open and robotic resections and demonstrated that negative margin can be safely achieved with the robotic approach . Chen and colleagues reported that disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for robotic procedures did not differ from those of the open group in a statistically significant fashion (DFS robotic: 91.5% at 1 year, 84.3% at 2 years, and 72.2% at 3 years; DSF open 79.2% at 1 year, 73.0% at 2 years, and 58.0% at 3 years [ P = .062]; OS robotic: 100% at 1 year, 97.8% at 2 years, 92.6% at 3 years; OS open: 98.4% at 1 year; 93.7% at 2 years; 93.7% at 3 years [ P = .431]) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

Magistri

Tarantino

Assirati

et al. 2019

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included. Results The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC. Conclusions Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease‐free surgical margin.

show abstract

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high‐volume center

McCarron,

Vrochides,

Martinie

2023

Annals of Gastroent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world‐wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

show abstract

Robotic versus open liver resections: A case‐matched comparison

Abstract: This preliminary comparison demonstrates the general feasibility of minor robotic liver resection in selected cases.

Cited by 38 publications

References 43 publications

Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: A systematic review

Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: A systematic review

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high‐volume center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About