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
  • [31] Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
    Solaini, Leonardo
    Bazzocchi, Francesca
    Cavaliere, Davide
    Avanzolini, Andrea
    Cucchetti, Alessandro
    Ercolani, Giorgio
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2018, 32 (03): : 1104 - 1110
  • [32] Laparoscopic versus open live donor hepatectomy in liver transplantation: a systemic review and meta-analysis
    Xu, Dong-Wei
    Wan, Ping
    Zhang, Jian-Jun
    Xia, Qiang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (08): : 15004 - 15016
  • [33] Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Dagnaes-Hansen, Julia
    Kristensen, Gitte Hjartbro
    Stroomberg, Hein V.
    Sorensen, Soren Schwartz
    Roder, Martin Andreas
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (06): : 1795 - 1801
  • [34] Laparoscopic hepatectomy for elderly patients: Major findings based on a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Ke
    Pan, Yu
    Maher, Hendi
    Zhang, Bin
    Zheng, Xue-yong
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (30)
  • [35] Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Power Analysis
    Mizuguchi, Toru
    Kawamoto, Masaki
    Meguro, Makoto
    Shibata, Toshihito
    Nakamura, Yukio
    Kimura, Yasutoshi
    Furuhata, Tomohisa
    Sonoda, Tomoko
    Hirata, Koichi
    SURGERY TODAY, 2011, 41 (01) : 39 - 47
  • [36] Maximizing the donor pool: left versus right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy-systematic review and meta-analysis
    Liu, Nian
    Wazir, Romel
    Wang, Jia
    Wang, Kun-Jie
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2014, 46 (08) : 1511 - 1519
  • [37] Pushing the frontiers of living donor right hepatectomy
    Kim, Seong Hoon
    Lee, Seung Duk
    Kim, Young Kyu
    Park, Sang-Jae
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 20 (48) : 18061 - 18069
  • [38] Technique of robotic right donor hepatectomy
    Chandran, Biju
    Varghese, Christi Titus
    Balakrishnan, Dinesh
    Nair, Krishnanunni
    Mallick, Shweta
    Mathew, Johns Shaji
    Amma, Binoj Sivasankara Pillai Thankamony
    Menon, Ramachandran Narayana
    Gopalakrishnan, Unnikrishnan
    Sudheer, Othiyil Vayoth
    Sudhindran, S.
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2022, 18 (01) : 157 - 160
  • [39] Outcomes of Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy From 52 Consecutive Cases Comparison With Open and Laparoscopy-assisted Donor Hepatectomy
    Rho, Seoung Yoon
    Lee, Jae Geun
    Joo, Dong Jin
    Kim, Myoung Soo
    Kim, Soon Il
    Han, Dai Hoon
    Choi, Jin Sub
    Choi, Gi Hong
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2022, 275 (02) : E433 - E442
  • [40] A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms
    Qiu, Jianguo
    Chen, Shuting
    Du Chengyou
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2016, 30 (03): : 862 - 875