The Journal of surgical research · 2017
Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first 46 consecutive cases.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Magistri Paolo, Tarantino Giuseppe, Guidetti Cristiano, Assirati Giacomo, Olivieri Tiziana, Ballarin Roberto, Coratti Andrea, Di Benedetto Fabrizio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma has a growing incidence worldwide, and represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Nowadays, minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery and in liver surgery as well.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed demographics, clinical, and pathologic characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients who had undergone minimally invasive resections for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution between June 2012 and May 2016.
RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics and comorbidities were found between patients in the laparoscopic (n = 24) and robotic (n = 22) groups, except for the rates of cirrhotic patients (91.7% and 68.2%, respectively, P = 0.046). Perioperative data analysis showed that the operative time (mean, 211 and 318 min, respectively, P < 0.001) was the only parameter in favor of laparoscopy. Conversely, robotic-assisted resections were related to less Clavien I-II postoperative complications (22 cases versus 13 cases; P = 0.03). As regards resection margins, the two groups were similar with no statistically significant differences in rates of disease-free resection margins.
CONCLUSIONS: A modern hepatobiliary center should offer both open and minimally invasive approaches to liver disease to provide the best care for each patient, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations. Our results show that the robotic approach is a reliable tool for accurate oncologic surgery, comparable to the laparoscopic approach. Robotic surgery also allows the surgeon to safely approach liver segments that are difficult to resect in laparoscopy, namely segments I-VII-VIII.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed demographics, clinical, and pathologic characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients who had undergone minimally invasive resections for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution between June 2012 and May 2016.
RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics and comorbidities were found between patients in the laparoscopic (n = 24) and robotic (n = 22) groups, except for the rates of cirrhotic patients (91.7% and 68.2%, respectively, P = 0.046). Perioperative data analysis showed that the operative time (mean, 211 and 318 min, respectively, P < 0.001) was the only parameter in favor of laparoscopy. Conversely, robotic-assisted resections were related to less Clavien I-II postoperative complications (22 cases versus 13 cases; P = 0.03). As regards resection margins, the two groups were similar with no statistically significant differences in rates of disease-free resection margins.
CONCLUSIONS: A modern hepatobiliary center should offer both open and minimally invasive approaches to liver disease to provide the best care for each patient, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations. Our results show that the robotic approach is a reliable tool for accurate oncologic surgery, comparable to the laparoscopic approach. Robotic surgery also allows the surgeon to safely approach liver segments that are difficult to resect in laparoscopy, namely segments I-VII-VIII.