Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:20
作者
Naranjo, Eddy P. Lincango [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Garces-Delgado, Estefany [3 ,5 ]
Siepmann, Timo [4 ,6 ]
Mirow, Lutz [7 ]
Solis-Pazmino, Paola [8 ]
Alexander-Leon, Harold [3 ,9 ]
Restrepo-Rodas, Gabriela [3 ,5 ]
Mancero-Montalvo, Rafael [3 ,5 ]
Ponce, Cristina J. [3 ,5 ]
Cadena-Semanate, Ramiro [3 ,5 ]
Vargas-Cordova, Ronnal [3 ,10 ]
Herrera-Cevallos, Glenda [3 ,11 ]
Vallejo, Sebastian [1 ]
Liu-Sanchez, Carolina [12 ]
Prokop, Larry J. [13 ]
Ziogas, Ioannis A. [14 ]
Vailas, Michail G. [15 ]
Guerron, Alfredo D. [16 ]
Visser, Brendan C. [17 ]
Ponce, Oscar J. [1 ,18 ]
Barbas, Andrew S. [19 ]
Moris, Dimitrios [19 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Knowledge & Evaluat Res Unit, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Hosp Vozandes Quito, Dept Teaching & Res, Quito 170521, Ecuador
[3] Equipo Invest Soc Ecuatoriana Cirugia Bariatr & M, Quito 170508, Ecuador
[4] Dresden Int Univ, Ctr Clin Res & Management Educ, Div Hlth Care Sci, D-01067 Dresden, Germany
[5] Univ Int Ecuador, Med Sch, Quito 170411, Ecuador
[6] Tech Univ Dresden, Univ Hosp Carl Gustav Carus, Dept Neurol, D-01307 Dresden, Germany
[7] Tech Univ Dresden, Dept Gen & Visceral Surg, Med Campus Chemnitz, D-01307 Dresden, Germany
[8] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[9] Univ Americas, Med Sch, Quito 170503, Ecuador
[10] Hosp Gen San Francisco IESS, Div Metab & Weight Loss Surg, Quito 170111, Ecuador
[11] Hosp Metropolitano, Div Metab & Weight Loss Surg, Quito 170521, Ecuador
[12] Univ Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Inst Med Trop Alexander Humboldt, Lima 15102, Peru
[13] Mayo Clin, Mayo Clin Lib, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[14] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Surg, Div Hepatobiliary Surg & Liver Transplantat, Med Ctr, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[15] Natl & Kapodistrian Univ Athens, Laikon Gen Hosp, Dept Surg 1, Athens 11528, Greece
[16] Duke Univ, Dept Surg, Div Metab & Weight Loss Surg, Durham, NC 27705 USA
[17] Stanford Univ, Dept Surg, Div Hepatobiliary & Pancreat Surg, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[18] Frimley Hlth NHS Fdn Trust, Frimley Pk Hosp, Surrey GU16 7UJ, England
[19] Duke Univ, Dept Surg, Durham, NC 27705 USA
关键词
liver transplantation; robot; systematic review; meta-analysis; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; LAPAROSCOPIC HEPATECTOMY; LIVER-TRANSPLANTATION; ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES; PURE; SAFETY; COMPLICATIONS; RESECTIONS; DONATION; SURGERY;
D O I
10.3390/jcm11092603
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Simple Summary Liver transplantation is the mainstay of treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease or certain types of liver cancer. However, the current organ supply cannot meet the continuously increased number of patients added to the liver transplant waitlist, and thus living donation has been proposed as an alternative to expand the donor pool. Robotic living donor right hepatectomy for adult liver transplantation has shown potential for lower morbidity and better donor outcomes, which can help increase donation and the organ supply. The current systematic review summarizes the available evidence comparing the outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open living donor right hepatectomy. The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: -0.7 95%CI -1.0, -0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: -0.8 95%CI -1.4, -0.3), Clavien-Dindo complications I-II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: -0.6 95%CI -1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: -0.4 95%CI -0.8, -0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: -0.5 95%CI -0.9, -0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: -6.4 95%CI -11.3, -1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The benefit of immunonutrition in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Chengshuo
    Chen, Baomin
    Jiao, Ao
    Li, Feng
    Wang, Bowen
    Sun, Ning
    Zhang, Jialin
    ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (49) : 86843 - 86852
  • [22] Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jin, Shan
    Tan, Shisheng
    Peng, Wen
    Jiang, Ying
    Luo, Chunshan
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 18 (01)
  • [23] Minimally Invasive Donors Right Hepatectomy versus Open Donors Right Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis
    Mu, Chunyang
    Chen, Chuwen
    Wan, Jianghong
    Chen, Guoxin
    Hu, Jing
    Wen, Tianfu
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (08)
  • [24] Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ioannis A. Ziogas
    Alexandros P. Evangeliou
    Konstantinos S. Mylonas
    Dimitrios I. Athanasiadis
    Panagiotis Cherouveim
    David A. Geller
    Richard D. Schulick
    Sophoclis P. Alexopoulos
    Georgios Tsoulfas
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2021, 22 : 585 - 604
  • [25] Laparoscopy-assisted and open living donor right hepatectomy: A comparative study of outcomes
    Baker, Talia B.
    Jay, Colleen L.
    Ladner, Daniela P.
    Preczewski, Luke B.
    Clark, Lori
    Holl, Jane
    Abecassis, Michael M.
    SURGERY, 2009, 146 (04) : 817 - 825
  • [26] Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation
    Broering, Dieter
    Sturdevant, Mark L.
    Zidan, Ahmed
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 22 (01) : 14 - 23
  • [27] Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy in the management of posterosuperior segments of the Liver: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yin, Zi
    Jin, Haosheng
    Ma, Tingting
    Wang, Hongxu
    Huang, Bowen
    Jian, Zhixiang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 60 : 101 - 110
  • [28] Laparoscopic right hepatectomy for living donor
    Kwon, Choon Hyuck David
    Choi, Gyu-Seong
    Joh, Jae-Won
    CURRENT OPINION IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 24 (02) : 167 - 174
  • [29] Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy
    Singh, Manoj K.
    Lubezky, Nir
    Facciuto, Matias
    Contreras-Saldivar, Alan
    Wadhera, Vikram
    Arvelakis, Antonios
    LaPointe-Rudow, Dianne
    Florman, Sander
    Facciuto, Marcelo E.
    CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 30 (09) : 1010 - 1015
  • [30] Perpetuating proficiency in donor right hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation
    Chan, See Ching
    Chan, Albert C. Y.
    Sharr, William W.
    Chok, Kenneth S. H.
    Cheung, Tan To
    Fan, Sheung Tat
    Lo, Chung Mau
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2014, 37 (02) : 65 - 72