Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison.
Rayman, Shlomi; Sucandy, Iswanto; Ross, Sharona B; Crespo, Kaitlyn; Syblis, Cameron; Rosemurgy, Alexander.
Affiliation
  • Rayman S; Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
  • Sucandy I; Department of General Surgery, Assuta Ashdod Public Hospital, Ashdod, Israel.
  • Ross SB; Faculty of Health and Science, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheba, Israel.
  • Crespo K; Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA. iswanto.sucandy@adventhealth.com.
  • Syblis C; Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
  • Rosemurgy A; Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
J Robot Surg ; 17(5): 2399-2407, 2023 Oct.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37428364
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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Laparoscopy / Robotic Surgical Procedures / Liver Neoplasms Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Robot Surg Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Laparoscopy / Robotic Surgical Procedures / Liver Neoplasms Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Robot Surg Year: 2023 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos Country of publication: Reino Unido