Robot-assisted laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy: Technique and surgical outcomes

Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, 3 Lok Man Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong SAR, China.
International Journal of Surgery (London, England) (Impact Factor: 1.65). 11/2011; 10(1):11-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Laparoscopic major hepatectomies remain a challenge for liver surgeons. The recent introduction of robotic surgical systems has revolutionized the field of minimally invasive surgery. It was developed to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The use of robotic system in laparoscopic major hepatectomy was not known yet.
Between December 2010 and July 2011, 6 right hemi-hepatectomies and 4 left hemi-hepatectomies were performed by robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Prospectively collected data was analyzed retrospectively.
Overall mean duration of the operation was 347.4 ± 85.9 (SD) minutes. Mean duration of the operation for right hemi-hepatectomy was 364.8 ± 98.1 ml, while mean duration of the operation for left hemi-hepatectomy was 321.3 ± 67.8 ml. Overall mean operative blood loss was 407 ± 286.8 ml. Mean operative blood loss for right hemi-hepatectomy was 500 ± 303.3 ml, while mean operative blood loss for left hemi-hepatectomy was 156.9 ± 40.7 ml. No open conversion was needed. Three patients (30%) had postoperative complications. There was no mortality. Mean hospital stay was 6.7 ± 3.5 days.
Our series indicate that in experienced hands, robot-assisted laparoscopic approach for hemi-hepatectomy is feasible and safe. As experience grows, this procedure will be more common.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose:To evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial caudate lobe resection using the robotic surgical system. Materials and Methods:This is a report of the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial caudate lobe resection on 2 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Results:Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial caudate lobe resection was completed successfully in these 2 patients. The operating time was 137 and 150 minutes, respectively. The blood loss was 137 and 150 mL, respectively. They were able to tolerate liquids on the second postoperative day. Both patients recovered from the operation. They were discharged 4 and 5 days after the operation, respectively. The resected margins of both specimens were tumor free (R0 resections). Conclusions:Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial caudate lobe resection is a feasible and safe procedure. Our results demonstrate the advantages of robotic system on short-term outcomes and suggest the extended indication of minimally invasive hepatectomy even in the technically challenging anatomic area.
    Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques 06/2014; 24(3):e88-e91. DOI:10.1097/SLE.0b013e31829ce820 · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive liver resection is feasible for select patients. The flexibility of robotic surgical instruments improves the possibility of minimally invasive liver resection, even in challenging major liver resection. We accumulated 69 patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection from 2007 to 2011, and 52 patients who underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection in 2012. The patients' characteristics, surgical procedures, and perioperative parameters were described and compared between these two groups. In 2012, we performed 56 robotic hepatobiliary procedures, which included 52 (92%) robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection procedures. Under the assistance of a robotic system, we increased the number of patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resection by more than twofold, and we increased the percentage of minimally invasive surgery for patients with fresh hepatocellular carcinoma, compared to our laparoscopic group (44% vs. 15%, respectively). We also increased the percentage of major hepatectomy for minimally invasive liver resection by a robotic approach (39% vs. 15%) with a comparable conversion rate (5%) and morbidity (8%), compared to the laparoscopic group. We can even perform a challenging living donor liver harvest procedure with a robotic-assisted minimally invasive approach. Robotic assistance increased the percentage of minimally invasive liver resections and the percentage of major minimally invasive liver resections with comparable perioperative results. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection is feasible, but its role needs more accumulated experience to clarify.
    03/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.asjsur.2014.01.015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Robotic surgery was introduced as a means of overcoming the limitations of traditional laparoscopy. This report describes the results of a matched comparative study between traditional (TLLR) and robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection (RLLR) performed in two European centers. From January 2008-April 2013, 46 patients underwent RLLR at San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital. Each patient was matched to a patient who had undergone TLLR at Antoine B,clSre Hospital. The variables evaluated were operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Twenty-eight patients were included in each group. Despite matching, more tumors were solitary in the TLLR group (P = 0.02) and more were localized in the superior and posterior segments in the RLLR group (P = 0.003). The median duration of surgery was 210 and 176 min in the RLLR and TLLR groups, respectively (P = 0.12). Conversion rate, blood loss, morbidity, and length of stay were similar in both groups. In multivariate analysis in all cohorts of patients, the sole independent risk factor of postoperative complications was the operative duration [OR = 1.016; P = 0.007]. Robotic LLR is associated with outcomes similar to those obtained with TLLR. However, robotics may facilitate LLR in patients with superior and posterior liver tumors.
    World Journal of Surgery 07/2014; 38(11). DOI:10.1007/s00268-014-2679-8 · 2.35 Impact Factor