Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Derek Manas, Steven White
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© The Finnish Surgical Society 2020.Background: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Result: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). Conclusion: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.
Author(s): Kamarajah SK, Bundred J, Manas D, Jiao LR, Hilal MA, White SA
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Surgery
Year: 2020
Volume: 110
Issue: 3
Pages: 290-300
Print publication date: 01/09/2021
Online publication date: 07/08/2020
Acceptance date: 20/04/2020
ISSN (print): 1457-4969
ISSN (electronic): 1799-7267
Publisher: Sage Publications Inc.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496920925637
DOI: 10.1177/1457496920925637
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
