No abstract

No abstract

Background: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in hepatectomy. Previous studies comparing the robotic and laparoscopic minor hepatectomy have been documented, but comparative studies on robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) involving a large patient cohort are rare. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LH.Methods: Data on the demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic or LH in a single center between November 2011 and July 2017 were analyzed.Results: A total of 92 patients underwent robotic and 48 LH. Multiple linear regression analysis showed no significant difference in perioperative outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and mortality between the groups. Compared to the laparoscopic cohort, the robotic cohort had a significantly less estimated blood loss (120.24 mL; 95% confidence interval, 53.72-186.76) and a significantly lower conversation rate (1.09% vs 10.42%; P = .034). Stratified and interaction analyses demonstrated that disease type had an interaction effect on the association between the operative approach and the estimated blood loss.Conclusions: Robotic hemihepatectomy was safe and feasible in selected patients.It had similar perioperative outcomes as LH and was better than LH regarding estimated blood loss and open conversion.

No abstract

Background: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas. Methods: From April 2011 to April 2017, consecutive patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas were included in this study. According to the type of operation, these patients were divided into the robotic hemihepatectomy (RH) group, the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) group, and the open hemihepatectomy (OH) group. The perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared among the three groups. The study was reported following the STROCSS criteria. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumour location, body surface area (BSA), future liver remnant volume (FLR), standard liver volume (SLV), liver haemangioma volume, FLR/SLV, resected normal liver volume/resected volume, hepatic disease, rates of blood transfusion, liver function after 24 h of surgery, operative morbidity and mortality among the three groups. Compared with patients in the RH group (n = 19) and the LH group (n = 13), patients in the OH group (n = 25) had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05), time to oral intake (P < 0.05), and time to get-out-of-bed (P < 0.05); a higher VAS score after 24 h of surgery (P < 0.05); and a shorter operative time (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in these postoperative outcomes (P>0.05) between the RH group and the LH group. When the setup time in the RH group was excluded, the operative time in the RH group was significantly shorter than that in the LH group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the operative time between the RH group and the OH group (P>0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in the RH group was the lowest among the three groups (P<0.05), and the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the LH group was less than that in the OH group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were associated with less intraoperative blood loss, better postoperative recovery and lower pain score. Compared with laparoscopic hemihepatectomy, robotic hemihepatectomy was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter operative time.

Our study reveals that silencing of PKM2 exhibits a tumor-suppressive role through altered Warburg effect and suggests that targeting PKM2 might serve as a potential therapeutic target for PDAC.

No abstract

Background: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas.Methods: From April 2011 to April 2017, consecutive patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas were included in this study. According to the type of operation, these patients were divided into the robotic hemihepatectomy (RH) group, the laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) group, and the open hemihepatectomy (OH) group. The perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared among the three groups. The study was reported following the STROCSS criteria.Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, tumour location, body surface area (BSA), future liver remnant volume (FLR), standard liver volume (SLV), liver haemangioma volume, FLR/SLV, resected normal liver volume/resected volume, hepatic disease, rates of blood transfusion, liver function after 24 hours of surgery, operative morbidity and mortality among the three groups. Compared with patients in the RH group (n=19) and the LH group (n=13), patients in the OH group (n=25) had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay (P< 0.05), time to oral intake (P < 0.05), and time to get-out-of-bed (P < 0.05); a higher VAS score after 24 hours of surgery (P < 0.05); and a shorter operative time (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in these postoperative outcomes (P＞0.05) between the RH group and the LH group. When the setup time in the RH group was excluded, the operative time in the RH group was significantly shorter than that in the LH group (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in the operative time between the RH group and the OH group (P＞0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in the RH group was the lowest among the three groups (P＜0.05), and the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the LH group was less than that in the OH group (P＜0.05).Conclusion: Robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were associated with less intraoperative blood loss,better postoperative recovery and lower pain score. Compared with laparoscopic hemihepatectomy, robotic hemihepatectomy was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter operative time.