for the International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection study group investigators IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). OBJECTIVETo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. INTERVENTIONS Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.

No abstract

Background Robotic liver resections (RLR) may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) but few studies have done a head‐to‐head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. Two thousand six hundred and six cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR cases. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched (PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched (CEM) analysis. Results Patients matched after 1:3 PSM (261 RLR vs 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM (296 RLR vs 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality, and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss (50 mL vs 100 ml, P < .001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM (1.5% vs 6.8%, P = .003) and CEM (1.4% vs 6.4%, P = .004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR (170 minutes vs 160 minutes, P = .036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM (167 minutes vs 163 minutes, P = .575). Conclusion This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high‐volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally invasive fashion.

Both robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy can be performed safely in expert centres, with excellent outcomes. The robotic approach was associated with statistically significant less blood loss compared with laparoscopy, although the clinical relevance of this finding remains unclear.

No abstract