Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

被引:8
作者
Long, Zhang-tao [1 ]
Li, Hua-jian [1 ]
Liang, Hao [1 ]
Wu, Ya-chen [1 ]
Ameer, Sajid [1 ]
Qu, Xi-lin [1 ]
Xiang, Zhi-qiang [1 ]
Wang, Qian [2 ]
Dai, Xiao-ming [1 ]
Zhu, Zhu [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ South China, Affiliated Hosp 1, Hengyang Med Sch, Dept Hepatobiliary Surg, Hengyang 421001, Hunan, Peoples R China
[2] Univ South China, Affiliated Hosp 1, Hengyang Med Sch, Dept Reprod Med, Hengyang 421001, Hunan, Peoples R China
[3] Univ South China, Affiliated Hosp 1, Hengyang Med Sch, Dept Educ & Training, Hengyang 421001, Hunan, Peoples R China
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2024年 / 38卷 / 02期
关键词
Liver malignancy; Robotic-assisted liver resection; Laparoscopic liver resection; Meta-analysis; Propensity score matching; MINIMALLY INVASIVE HEPATECTOMY; CONVERSION; OUTCOMES; COHORT;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-023-10561-5
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
ObjectiveHow different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.ResultsFive high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups.ConclusionSurgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.
引用
收藏
页码:697 / 705
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
  • [21] Laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: 3-year outcomes of a cohort study with propensity score matching
    Kang, So Hyun
    Choi, YoungRok
    Lee, Woohyung
    Ahn, Soyeon
    Cho, Jai Young
    Yoon, Yoo-Seok
    Han, Ho-Seong
    [J]. SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD, 2020, 33 : 63 - 69
  • [22] Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver
    Kim, Jae Keun
    Park, Joon Seong
    Han, Dai Hoon
    Choi, Gi Hong
    Kim, Kyung Sik
    Choi, Jin Sub
    Yoon, Dong Sup
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2016, 30 (11): : 4756 - 4764
  • [23] Outcomes after 3D laparoscopic and robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma:a multicenter comparative study
    Lim, Chetana
    Goumard, Claire
    Salloum, Chady
    Tudisco, Antonella
    Napoli, Niccolo
    Boggi, Ugo
    Azoulay, Daniel
    Scatton, Olivier
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (07): : 3258 - 3266
  • [24] Short- and Long-term Outcomes after Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignancies: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
    Lim, Chetana
    Salloum, Chady
    Tudisco, Antonella
    Ricci, Claudio
    Osseis, Michael
    Napoli, Niccolo
    Lahat, Eylon
    Boggi, Ugo
    Azoulay, Daniel
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2019, 43 (06) : 1594 - 1603
  • [25] Moher D, 2009, ANN INTERN MED, V151, P264, DOI [10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299, 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1136/bmj.b2700, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007, 10.1136/bmj.i4086]
  • [26] Innovation for the Sake of Innovation? How Does Robotic Hepatectomy Compare to Laparoscopic or Open Resection for HCC-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Murtha-Lemekhova, Anastasia
    Fuchs, Juri
    Hoffmann, Katrin
    [J]. CANCERS, 2022, 14 (14)
  • [27] Minimally Invasive Hepatic Surgery
    Ocuin, Lee M.
    Tsung, Allan
    [J]. SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2016, 96 (02) : 299 - +
  • [28] Laparoscopic Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Focus on Oncological Outcomes
    Ratti, Francesca
    Casadei-Gardini, Andrea
    Cipriani, Federica
    Fiorentini, Guido
    Pedica, Federica
    Burgio, Valentina
    Cascinu, Stefano
    Aldrighetti, Luca
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (13)
  • [29] Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database
    Salehi, Omid
    Kazakova, Vera
    Vega, Eduardo A.
    Kutlu, Onur C.
    Alarcon, Sylvia, V
    Freeman, Richard
    Kozyreva, Olga
    Conrad, Claudius
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2022, 36 (07): : 5382 - 5391
  • [30] Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
    Shea, Beverley J.
    Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
    Wells, George A.
    Boers, Maarten
    Andersson, Neil
    Hamel, Candyce
    Porter, Ashley C.
    Tugwell, Peter
    Moher, David
    Bouter, Lex M.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2007, 7 (1)