Dataset Information

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).

Objective

To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Design, setting, and participants

In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.

Interventions

Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Main outcomes and measures

Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).

Conclusion and relevance

Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.

SUBMITTER: Chong CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8908223 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy.

Chong Charing C CC Fuks David D Lee Kit-Fai KF Zhao Joseph J JJ Choi Gi Hong GH Sucandy Iswanto I Chiow Adrian K H AKH Marino Marco V MV Gastaca Mikel M Wang Xiaoying X Lee Jae Hoon JH Efanov Mikhail M Kingham T Peter TP D'Hondt Mathieu M Troisi Roberto I RI Choi Sung-Hoon SH Sutcliffe Robert P RP Chan Chung-Yip CY Lai Eric C H ECH Park James O JO Di Benedetto Fabrizio F Rotellar Fernando F Sugioka Atsushi A Coelho Fabricio Ferreira FF Ferrero Alessandro A Long Tran Cong Duy TCD Lim Chetana C Scatton Olivier O Liu Qu Q Schmelzle Moritz M Pratschke Johann J Cheung Tan-To TT Liu Rong R Han Ho-Seong HS Tang Chung Ngai CN Goh Brian K P BKP

JAMA surgery 20220501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to ...[more]

PMID: 35262660

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.ResultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.ConclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.

Project description:PurposeInternational guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0-16.64) vs 10 (2.0-24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0-4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0-4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46-85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19-0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06-0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.

Project description:ObjectiveDuring the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).ResultsBefore propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).ConclusionDespite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

Dataset Information

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusion and relevance

Publications

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets