» Articles » PMID: 37428364

A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Robotic and Open Hepatectomy for Treatment of Liver Tumors. Clinical Outcomes, Oncological Survival, and Costs Comparison

Overview
Journal J Robot Surg
Publisher Springer
Date 2023 Jul 10
PMID 37428364
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Citing Articles

Exploring the feasibility of robotic liver resection in a limited resource setting.

Jang E, Kang S, Kim K J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):187.

PMID: 38683380 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01901-1.


Laparoscopic and open minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with clinically significant portal hypertension: a multicenter study using inverse probability weighting approach.

Shinkawa H, Kaibori M, Kabata D, Nakai T, Ueno M, Hokuto D Surg Endosc. 2023; 38(2):757-768.

PMID: 38052887 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10591-z.

References
1.
Sucandy I, Luberice K, Lippert T, Castro M, Krill E, Ross S . Robotic Major Hepatectomy: An Institutional Experience and Clinical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27(13):4970-4979. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08845-4. View

2.
Lai E, Tang C . Training robotic hepatectomy: the Hong Kong experience and perspective. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2017; 6(4):222-229. PMC: 5554762. DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2017.01.21. View

3.
Miyasaka Y, Nakamura M, Wakabayashi G . Pioneers in laparoscopic hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017; 25(1):109-111. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.506. View

4.
Sucandy I, Schlosser S, Bourdeau T, Spence J, Attili A, Ross S . Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. J Robot Surg. 2019; 14(1):75-80. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-00935-0. View

5.
Goh B, Lee S, Teo J, Kam J, Jeyaraj P, Cheow P . Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive hepatectomy: a contemporary single-institution experience with 400 consecutive resections. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32(11):4658-4665. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6310-1. View