Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Department of Digestive, HBP and Liver Transplantation, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022 Aug;29(8):843-854. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.1149. Epub 2022 Apr 27.
Robotic liver resections (RLR) may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques.
A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. Two thousand six hundred and six cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR cases. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched (PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched (CEM) analysis.
Patients matched after 1:3 PSM (261 RLR vs 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM (296 RLR vs 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality, and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss (50 mL vs 100 ml, P < .001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM (1.5% vs 6.8%, P = .003) and CEM (1.4% vs 6.4%, P = .004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR (170 minutes vs 160 minutes, P = .036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM (167 minutes vs 163 minutes, P = .575).
This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high-volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally invasive fashion.
机器人肝切除术(RLR)可能有能力解决腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)的一些缺点,但很少有研究对头侧对比两种技术在肝前外侧段切除术后的结果。
对 2005 年至 2020 年间 26 个国际中心的 3202 例接受微创肝前外侧肝段 LR 的患者进行了回顾性研究。符合研究标准的 2666 例患者中,有 358 例接受 RLR,1868 例接受 LLR。使用 1:3 倾向评分匹配(PSM)和 1:1 粗化精确匹配(CEM)分析比较两组的围手术期结果。
经过 1:3 PSM(261 例 RLR 与 783 例 LLR)和 1:1 CEM(296 例 RLR 与 296 例 LLR)匹配的患者,在住院时间、再入院率、发病率、死亡率和肿瘤边缘的涉及或接近方面无显著差异。RLR 手术的出血量明显减少(50ml 比 100ml,P<0.001),在 PSM(1.5%比 6.8%,P=0.003)和 CEM(1.4%比 6.4%,P=0.004)上,开放转化率也低于 LLR。虽然 PSM 分析显示 RLR 的手术时间长于 LLR(170 分钟比 160 分钟,P=0.036),但 CEM 分析结果证明这一差异无统计学意义(167 分钟比 163 分钟,P=0.575)。
这项多中心国际联合 PSM 和 CEM 研究表明,在高容量中心选择的患者中,RLR 和 LLR 的围手术期结果相当。机器人手术方法与显著较低的出血量相关,并允许更多的手术以微创的方式完成。