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

被引:19
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
  • [41] A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms
    Jianguo Qiu
    Shuting Chen
    Du Chengyou
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2016, 30 : 862 - 875
  • [42] Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zheng, Jian-Chun
    Zhao, Shuai
    Chen, Wei
    Wu, Jian-Xiang
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2023, 18 (01) : 20 - 30
  • [43] Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: Focus on 55 donors undergoing right hepatectomy
    Suh, K. S.
    Hong, S. K.
    Lee, K. W.
    Yi, N. J.
    Kim, H. S.
    Ahn, S. W.
    Yoon, K. C.
    Choi, J. Y.
    Oh, D.
    Kim, H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2018, 18 (02) : 434 - 443
  • [44] A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy
    He, Zhi-Qiang
    Mao, Ya-Ling
    Lv, Tian-Run
    Liu, Fei
    Li, Fu-Yu
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [45] Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jianchun Zheng
    Shuai Zhao
    Wei Chen
    Ming Zhang
    Jianxiang Wu
    Techniques in Coloproctology, 2023, 27 : 521 - 535
  • [46] Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zheng, Jianchun
    Zhao, Shuai
    Chen, Wei
    Zhang, Ming
    Wu, Jianxiang
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2023, 27 (07) : 521 - 535
  • [47] A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Gavriilidis, Paschalis
    Roberts, Keith J.
    Aldrighetti, Luca
    Sutcliffe, Robert P.
    EJSO, 2020, 46 (07): : 1214 - 1224
  • [48] Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes - A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations
    Cheah, Yee L.
    Heimbach, Julie
    Kwon, Choon Hyuck David
    Pomposelli, James
    Rudow, Dianne LaPointe
    Broering, Dieter
    Spiro, Michael
    Raptis, Dimitri Aristotle
    Roberts, John P.
    Niemann, Claus
    Pollok, Joerg-Matthias
    Ghani, Shahi Abdul
    Fan, Ka Siu
    CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 36 (10)
  • [49] Laparoscopic VS open hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Hui
    Zheng, Jun
    Cai, Jian-Ye
    Li, Shi-Hui
    Zhang, Jun-Bin
    Wang, Xiao-Ming
    Chen, Gui-Hua
    Yang, Yang
    Wang, Gen-Shu
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 23 (43) : 7791 - 7806
  • [50] The efficacy and safety of glucocorticoid for perioperative patients with hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Liu, Lili
    Zhang, Chengren
    Lu, Tingting
    Li, Xiong
    Jiang, Zhiliang
    Tian, Hongwei
    Hao, Xiangyong
    Yang, Kehu
    Guo, Tiankang
    EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2023, 17 (01) : 59 - 71