Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

Qu Liu, Wanguang Zhang, Joseph J. Zhao, Nicholas L. Syn, Federica Cipriani, Mohammad Alzoubi, Davit L. Aghayan, Tiing Foong Siow, Chetana Lim, Olivier Scatton, Paulo Herman, Fabricio Ferreira Coelho, Marco V. Marino, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Adrian K.H. Chiow, Iswanto Sucandy, Arpad Ivanecz, Sung Hoon Choi, Jae Hoon Lee, Mikel PrietoMarco Vivarelli, Felice Giuliante, Bernardo Dalla Valle, Andrea Ruzzenente, Chee Chien Yong, Zewei Chen, Mengqiu Yin, Constantino Fondevila, Mikhail Efanov, Zenichi Morise, Fabrizio Di Benedetto, Raffaele Brustia, Raffaele Dalla Valle, Ugo Boggi, David Geller, Andrea Belli, Riccardo Memeo, Salvatore Gruttadauria, Alejandro Mejia, James O. Park, Fernando Rotellar, Gi Hong Choi, Ricardo Robles-Campos, Xiaoying Wang, Robert P. Sutcliffe, Moritz Schmelzle, Johann Pratschke, Chung Ngai Tang, Charing C.N. Chong, Kit Fai Lee, Juul Meurs, Mathieu D'Hondt, Kazuteru Monden, Santiago Lopez-Ben, Thomas Peter Kingham, Alessandro Ferrero, Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri, Mansour Saleh, Daniel Cherqui, Junhao Zheng, Xiao Liang, Alessandro Mazzotta, Olivier Soubrane, Go Wakabayashi, Roberto I. Troisi, Tan To Cheung, Yutaro Kato, Atsushi Sugioka, Mizelle D'Silva, Ho Seong Han, Phan Phuoc Nghia, Tran Cong Duy Long, Bjørn Edwin, David Fuks, Kuo Hsin Chen, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Luca Aldrighetti, Rong Liu, Brian K.P. Goh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. Conclusions: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)969-975
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume278
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2023
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • extended right hepatectomy
  • laparoscopic liver resection
  • major hepatectomy
  • right hepatectomy
  • robotic liver resection

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this