Transitioning From Open to Robotic Liver Resection. Results of 46 Consecutive Procedures Including a Majority of Major Hepatectomies

2020 ◽  
pp. 155335062095458
Author(s):  
Alain Valverde ◽  
Solafah Abdallah ◽  
Divya Danoussou ◽  
Nicolas Goasguen ◽  
Ingrid Jouvin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Robotic Liver Resection ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Hospital Patients ◽  
Minimally Invasive Liver Resection ◽  
Malignant Liver ◽  
Major Hepatectomies

Aims. Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results. Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

scholarly journals Repeated Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comparison with Primary Liver Resections concerning Perioperative and Long-Term Outcome

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristoffer Jönsson ◽  
Gerd Gröndahl ◽  
Martin Salö ◽  
Bobby Tingstedt ◽  
Roland Andersson
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Liver Resections

Introduction. 60% of patients operated for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) will develop recurrent disease and some may be candidates for a repeated liver resection. The study aimed to evaluate differences in intraoperative blood loss and complications comparing the primary and the repeated liver resection for metastases of colorectal cancer (CRC), as well as to evaluate differences in long-time follow-up.Method. 32 patients underwent 34 repeated liver resections due to recurrence of CRLM an studied retrospectively to identify potential differences between the primary and the repeat resections.Results. There was no 30-day postoperative mortality or postoperative hospital deaths. The median blood loss at repeat resection (1850 mL) was significantly (P=0.014) higher as compared to the primary liver resection (1000 mL). This did not have any effect on the rate of complications, even though increased bleeding in itself was a risk factor for complications. There were no differences in survival at long-term follow-up.Discussion. A repeated liver resection for CRLM was associated with an increased intraoperative bleeding as compared to the first resection. Possible explanations include presence of adhesions, deranged vascular anatomy, more complicated operations and the effects on the liver by chemotherapy following the first liver resection. 30 out of 32 patients had only one reresection of the liver.

scholarly journals Single-Institution Early Experience and Learning Curve with Robotic Liver Resections

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviad Gravetz ◽  
Iswanto Sucandy ◽  
Chandler Wilfong ◽  
Nirrita Patel ◽  
Janelle Spence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
Robotic Liver Resection ◽  
Open Operation ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Posterosuperior Segment

Robotic liver resection is being introduced with its potential to overcome limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This study was undertaken to document early experience and learning curve of robotic liver resection in our institution. All patients undergoing liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. Patients were divided into three consecutive tertiles (cohort I–III). Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resection within the study period. Twenty-four per cent of patients underwent formal right or left hemihepatectomy, 21 per cent underwent sectionectomy, 6 per cent underwent central hepatectomy, and the remainder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Formal hemihepatectomy and right posterosuperior segment resection were undertaken in two patients in cohort I, four patients in cohort II, and four patients in cohort III. Two cases were converted to “open” operation. Operative time was 172 (194.5 ± 65.1) minutes in cohort I, 222 (247.8 ± 109.8) minutes in cohort II, and 280 (302.5 ± 84.9) minutes in cohort III, reflecting increasing degree of technical complexity. Estimated blood loss decreased significantly throughout the cohorts, being 400 mL, 200 mL, and 100 mL in cohorts I to III, respectively. Major intraoperative complications were not seen. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, resulting in a single mortality. Length of hospital stay was three days, with two patients being readmitted within 30 days. Robotic technique for liver resection is feasible and safe. It offers good short-term clinical outcomes, including for patients who require major liver resection. As the proficiency developed, a notable improvement in technically ability to undertake more complex resections with decreasing blood loss and minimal morbidity was seen.

scholarly journals Incidence, Diagnosis and Repair of a Diaphragmatic Hernia Following Hepatic Surgery: A Single Center Analysis of 3107 Consecutive Liver Resections

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1011
Author(s):  
Jonas Raakow ◽  
Ioannis-Fivos Megas ◽  
Moritz Schmelzle ◽  
Wenzel Schoening ◽  
Georg Lurje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Diaphragmatic Hernia ◽  
Suture Repair ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Hepatic Surgery ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Mesh Augmentation ◽  
Extended Right Hepatectomy ◽  
Mesh Implant

Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) after a liver resection (LR) is an uncommon but potentially severe complication. In this retrospective study, we aim to share our experience with DH in our hepatic surgery center. We retrospectively analyzed 3107 patients who underwent a liver resection between January 2012 and September 2019. The diagnosis of DH was based on clinical examination and radiological imaging and confirmed by intraoperative findings during surgical repair. Five out of 3107 (0.16%) patients after LR developed DH. Especially, all five DH patients had a major right-sided LR before (n = 716, 0.7%). The mean time interval between initial LR and occurrence of DH was 30 months (range 15 to 44 months). DH exclusively occurred after a right or extended right hepatectomy. Two patients underwent emergency surgery, three were asymptomatic, and DH was diagnosed in follow-up imaging. Three of these five treated patients (60%) developed DH recurrence: two of three (67%) patients after suture repair alone and the only patient after suture repair in combination with an absorbable mesh. The patient who was treated with a composite mesh implant did not show any signs of DH recurrence after 52 months of follow-up. In patients who develop DH after liver surgery, a mesh augmentation with nonresorbable material is generally recommended. In order to diagnose these patients in an early state, we recommend that special attention be paid and a prompt and targeted diagnostic examination of patients with abdominal complaints after right-sided liver resections take place.

scholarly journals Technical Modifications in Parenchymal Transection During Laparoscopic Liver Resection Do Not Confer to an Increased Rate of Cut Surface Complications Compared to Open CUSA Based Liver Resections – A Single Center Comparative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Sucher ◽  
Sebastian Recknagel ◽  
Hanna Guice ◽  
Elisabeth Sucher ◽  
Andri Lederer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Parenchymal Transection ◽  
Medical Database ◽  
Biliary Leakage ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Technical Modifications ◽  
Minimally Invasive Liver Resection

Abstract Background/AimsBiliary leakage (BL) is a major cause of postoperative morbidity after liver resection. Aim of our study was to analyse surgical parameters and postoperative morbidity with special emphasis on BL, after launching a minimally invasive liver resection program.MethodsA prospectively maintained medical database of patients who required a liver resection was used for analysis.ResultsA total of n=156 patients were divided into a group of n=47 patients (30.1%) receiving laparoscopic (LLR) and n=109 patients (69.9%) undergoing open liver resections (OLR). Patient age (OLR: 59.4 ± 16.0 vs. LLR: 57.9 ± 14.2 years) and male to female ratio (OLR: 63/46 vs. LLR: 25/22) were comparable. We performed n=75 (68.8%) major OLR and n=31 (66.0%) major LLR. Operation time was OLR 342.8 ± 110.5 min vs. LLR 287.3 ± 132.6 min (p=0.014) and the average blood loss was OLR 523.5 ± 428.6 ml vs. LLR 355.5 ± 459.2 ml. Morbidity and mortality was observed in n= 29 (18.6 %) and n= 7 (4.5 %) patients, respectively. The overall biliary leakage (BL) rate was 5.1% (n= 8). Majority of BL were detected in OLR with biliodigestive anastomosis (BDA) (n=2 (11.0%)) followed by OLR without BDA (n=6 (6.5%)). No BL were detected in patients with LLR. Hospital stay was significantly prolonged after OLR in patients with BL (38.4 ± 20.1 vs. 17.4 ± 11.1 days, p< 0.001).ConclusionIn line with previous reports, the introduction of different transection techniques in laparoscopic liver resections did not increase morbidity and BL-rate.

scholarly journals Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao-Ming Wu ◽  
Rey-Heng Hu ◽  
Hong-Shiee Lai ◽  
Po-Huang Lee
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Minimally Invasive Liver Resection

scholarly journals Multivisceral Resection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Cancers ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 355
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Sullivan ◽  
Yuman Fong
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Liver Surgery ◽  
3D Visualization ◽  
Multivisceral Resection ◽  
Robotic Liver Resection ◽  
Conversion To Open Surgery ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Invasive Techniques ◽  
Robotic Liver Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery techniques are expanding in utilization in liver resections and now include robotic approaches. Robotic liver resection has been demonstrated to have several benefits, including surgeon ergonomics, wrist articulation, and 3D visualization. Similarly, for multivisceral liver resections, the use of minimally invasive techniques has evolved and expanded from laparoscopy to robotics. The aim of this article is to review the literature and describe multivisceral resections, including hepatectomy, using a robotic technique. We describe over 50 published cases of simultaneous robotic liver resection with colon or rectal resection. In addition, we describe several pancreatectomies performed with liver resection and one extra-abdominal pulmonary resection with liver resection. In total, these select reported cases at experienced centers demonstrate the safety of robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery with acceptable morbidity and rare conversion to open surgery. As robotic technology advances and experience with robotic techniques grows, robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery should continue to be investigated in future studies.

scholarly journals ROBOTIC LIVER RESECTION. REPORT OF THE FIRST 50 CASES

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 514-519
Author(s):  
Marcel Autran C MACHADO ◽  
Murillo M LOBO-FILHO ◽  
Bruno H MATTOS ◽  
André O ARDENGH ◽  
Fábio F MAKDISSI
Keyword(s):  
Liver Resection ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Colon Resection ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Open Resection ◽  
Robotic Liver Resection ◽  
Robotic Hepatectomy ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Practical Guidelines

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections. METHODS: This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference. RESULTS: The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed. CONCLUSION: The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.

Radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (10) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Liver Resections ◽  
Multi Stage

Introduction: Radical liver resection is the only method for the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM); however, only 20–30% of patients with CLMs can be radically treated. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the possible methods of palliative treatment in such patients. Methods: RFA was performed in 381 patients with CLMs between 01 Jan 2001 and 31 Dec 2018. The mean age of the patients was 65.2±8.7 years. The male to female ratio was 2:1. Open laparotomy was done in 238 (62.5%) patients and the CT-navigated transcutaneous approach was used in 143 (37.5%) patients. CLMs <5 cm (usually <3 cm) in diameter were the indication for RFA. We used RFA as the only method in 334 (87.6%) patients; RFA in combination with resection was used in 36 (9.4%), and with multi-stage resection in 11 (3%) patients. We performed RFA in a solitary CLM in 170 (44.6%) patients, and in 2−5 CLMs in 211 (55.6%) patients. We performed computed tomography in each patient 48 hours after procedure. Results: The 30-day postoperative mortality was zero. Complications were present in 4.8% of transcutaneous and in 14.2% of open procedures, respectively, in the 30-day postoperative period. One-, 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 94.8, 66.8, 43.9 and 16.6%, respectively, in patients undergoing RFA, and 90.6, 69.1, 52.8 and 39.2%, respectively, in patients with liver resections. Disease free survival was 63.2, 30.1, 18.4 and 13.1%, respectively, in the same patients after RFA, and 71.1, 33.3, 22.8 and 15.5%, respectively, after liver resections. Conclusion: RFA is a palliative thermal ablation method, which is one of therapeutic options in patients with radically non-resectable CLMs. RFA is useful especially in a non-resectable, or resectable (but for the price of large liver resection) solitary CLM <3 cm in diameter and in CLM relapses. RFA is also part of multi-stage liver procedures.

CLINICAL FEATURES, INDICATIONS AND RESULT OF TRACHEOTOMY

2017 ◽  
pp. 50-55
Author(s):  
Duc Luu Ngo ◽  
Tu The Nguyen ◽  
Manh Hung Ho ◽  
Thanh Thai Le
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Features ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Tube Obstruction ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Male Female Ratio ◽  
Hospital Patients ◽  
Level I

Background: This study aims to survey some clinical features, indications and results of tracheotomy at Hue Central Hospital and Hue University Hospital. Patients and method: Studying on 77 patients who underwent tracheotomy at all of departments and designed as an prospective, descriptive and interventional study. Results: Male-female ratio was 4/1. Mean age was 49 years. Career: farmer 44.2%, worker 27.2%, officials 14.3%, student 7.8%, other jobs 6.5%. Respiratory condition before tracheotomy: underwent intubation 62.3%, didn’t undergo intubation 37.7%. Period of stay of endotracheal tube: 1-5 days 29.2%, 6-14 days 52.1%, >14 days 18.7%. Levels of dyspnea before tracheotomy: level I 41.4%, level II 48.3%, level III 0%, 10.3% of cases didn’t have dyspnea. Twenty cases (26%) were performed as an emergency while fifty seven (74%) as elective produces. Classic indications (37.7%) and modern indications (62.3%). On the bases of the site, we divided tracheostomy into three groups: high (0%), mid (25.3%) and low (74.7%). During follow-up, 44 complications occurred in 29 patients (37.7%). Tracheobronchitis 14.3%, tube obstruction 13%, subcutaneous empysema 10.4%, hemorrhage 5%, diffcult decannulation 5.2%, tube displacement 3.9%, canule watery past 2.6%, wound infection 1.3%. The final result after tracheotomy 3 months: there are 33 patients (42.9%) were successfully decannulated. In the 33 patients who were successfully decannulated: the duration of tracheotomy ranged from 1 day to 90 days, beautiful scar (51.5%), medium scar (36.4%), bad scar (12.1%). Conclusions: In tracheotomy male were more than female, adult were more than children. The main indication was morden indication. Tracheobronchitis and tube obstruction were more common than other complications. Key words: Tracheotomy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document