Safety and Efficacy of Robotic vs Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 January 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA Surgery
- Vol. 158 (1) , 46-54
Abstract
Importance: Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery remain a hotly debated topic in surgical oncology, but sparse data have been published thus far.Objective: To analyze short- and long-term outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Western high-volume centers to assess the safety, reproducibility, and oncologic efficacy of this technique.Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated the outcomes of patients receiving RLR vs open liver resection (OLR) for HCC between 2010 and 2020 in 5 high-volume centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a group of patients who underwent RLR was compared with a validation cohort of OLR patients from a high-volume center that did not perform RLR.Main Outcomes and Measures: A retrospective analysis was performed of prospectively maintained databases at 2 European and 2 US institutions of patients who underwent RLR for HCC between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2020. The main outcomes were safety and feasibility of RLR for HCC and its oncologic outcomes compared with a European OLR validation cohort. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered significant.Results: The study included 398 patients (RLR group: 125 men, 33 women, median [IQR] age, 66 [58-71] years; OLR group: 315 men, 83 women; median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years), and 106 RLR patients were compared with 106 OLR patients after propensity score matching. The RLR patients had a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 295 [190-370] minutes vs 200 [165-255] minutes, including docking; P < .001) but a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (median [IQR], 4 [3-6] days vs 10 [7-13] days; P < .001) and a lower number of admissions to the intensive care unit (7 [6.6%] vs 21 [19.8%]; P = .002). Incidence of posthepatectomy liver failure was significantly lower in the RLR group (8 [7.5%] vs 30 [28.3%]; P = .001), with no cases of grade C failure. The 90-day overall survival rate was comparable between the 2 groups (RLR, 99.1% [95% CI, 93.5%-99.9%]; OLR, 97.1% [95% CI, 91.3%-99.1%]), as was the cumulative incidence of death related to tumor recurrence (RLR, 8.8% [95% CI, 3.1%-18.3%]; OLR, 10.2% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.7%]).Conclusions and Relevance: This study represents the largest Western experience to date of full RLR for HCC. Compared with OLR, RLR performed in tertiary centers represents a safe treatment strategy for patients with HCC and those with compromised liver function while achieving oncologic efficacy.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With CirrhosisAnnals of Surgery, 2017
- Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgeryDer Chirurg, 2016
- Liver surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform itUpdates in Surgery, 2016
- Propensity score analysis of outcomes following laparoscopic or open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinomaBritish Journal of Surgery, 2016
- Assessment of Liver Function in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New Evidence-Based Approach—The ALBI GradeJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2015
- A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resectionJournal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 2014
- Posthepatectomy liver failure: A definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS)Surgery, 2011
- Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver SurgerySurgery, 2011
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesThe Lancet, 2007
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987